i - r r í o ~ o ~ oEXEL

Kwvo~av~~voÚ-rroX~s v
THE RISE O F THE PATRIARCHAL POWER IN BYZANTIUM
FROM NICAENUM 11 T O EPANAGOGA

Part 1
From Nicaenum 11 to the Second Outbreak of Iconoclasm

The history of the Constantinopolitan patriarchate over the century pre-

ceding the year 784, when St.Tarasius assumed the office, had been clearly
disastrous. Four patriarchs were anathematized as heretics by the sixth Ec-
umenical Council in Constantinople in 681. Justinian 11 blinded and exiled
patriarch Callinicus in 705. His successor St. Cyrus in 711 was deposed by
Bardanes Philippicus, while John VI embraced monothelete heresy and
had to repent thereafter in order to keep his see. Patriarch St.Germanus
was powerless to stop iconoclast propaganda by the bishop Constantine
of Nacolea even when the latter was not yet openly supported by the em-
peror. But the darkest period for the patriarchate of Constantinople began
in 730, when Leo 111 forced Germanus to retire and appointed the first
iconoclast patriarch Anastasius.
Anastasius was also to become the first victim of what in al1 probability
was a conscious and consistent policy adopted by Constantine V
Copronymus in regard to the Byzantine church. The antimonastic aspect
of that policy has always been attracting a disproportional attention,
although Constantine's actions concerning the see of Constantinople are
by no means less important. When treated separately, these actions can
usually be explained away by different plausible reasons: but together
they form a coherent pattern which will be briefly outlined below.
After crushing the rebellion of Artavasdus in 743 Constantine V punish-
ed the patriarch (who sided with the rebel) by having him beaten in public
and paraded through the streets of the capital while seated backward on
an assl. However, after the public humiliation, which meant a total loss of
face for the victim, Anastasius retained his office. "Doubtless, says G.

Theophanis Chronographia, ed.C. DE BOOR,Lipsiae 1883, p.420,27-421,2

46 DMITRY E. MINOGENOV

Ostrogorsky, the punishment was deliberately aimed at discrediting the

highest ecclesiastical officen2.S. Gero finds no support for this statement3,
although Theophanes' account is quite unambiguous: the chronicler says
that Constantine "intimidated and enslaved the patriarch.
Constantine's further steps were equally appaling for the Byzantine
tradition: he convened a council, intended to be ecumenical, without both-
ering first to have a new patriarch elected, and then presented his candi-
date to the bishops in the manner of which al1 iconophile authors speak
with invariable outrage. The emperor actually al1 but performed the ordi-
nation himself4. The new patriarch's fate was even more horrible, for after
being deposed and banished in 767, he was brought back to Constantino-
ple the next year, subjected to public mockery and brutal tortures and fi-
nally decapitated.
These three episodes could indicate that Constantine V's campaign
against the church was not limited to recalcitrant iconophile monks. He
obviously sought to seize fo? himself and for the state al1 authority that
was still in the hands of ecclesiastical institutions. That Constantine was
not content with simply appointing obedient and insignificant men as pa-
triarchs, but also used e v e v occasion to demonstrate his contempt for the
dignity of their rank, shows that this authority was still considerable.
The reign of Constantine Copronymus marked perhaps the deepest
point of decline in the history of the see of Constantinople before 1453. So
upon assuming his office in 784, St. Tarasius had to deal with an enor-
mously difficult task of rebuilding the ruined prestige of the Constantino-
politan patriarchate. The situation in which he found himself at that mo-
ment was somewhat paradoxical, because he had virtually no allies within
the church itself. The iconoclast hierarchy was either outright hostile or
unreliable, while the powerful monastic community, whose ranks had
swollen during Leo IV's and especially Eirene's reign with very well con-
nected members of the nobilitys, resented the promotion of a layman who
apparently belonged to another than themselves faction of the Byzantine
ruling élite. Thus the only real force behind Tarasius, besides a few icon-
ophile bishops ordained before 787, was, oddly enough, the same impe-

2 G. OSTROGORSKY, Histoy of Byzantine State. Oxford 1968, p.166.

3 S. GERO,Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V; m'tb Particular At-
tention to the Oriental Sources. Louvain 1977, p.20 n.45.
4 Theophanes, p.428. Vita Stcrpbani Iunioris, PG 100, 1112 B-C. Gero again thinks that
everything "was quite in order" - S. GERO,Op. cit., p.63 n.31.
5 See P. SPECK,Kaiser Konstantin W, München 1978, p.67-70.
rial power that in not so distant past did everything to undermine the au-
thority of his office.
This time the attitude was quite different, and Eirene was ready to pro-
vide Tarasius with al1 support he needed - but the assistance of secular
authorities had to be used with extreme caution, lest the patriarchal pres-
tige Tarasius was bound to restore could instead suffer even further dam-
age. Yet the empress demonstrated exemplary discreteness: she gathered
an impressive asse.mbly in the palace ("al1 the people", according to Theo-
phanes6) and made the participants (who were not, of course, unaware of
Eirene's choice) unanimously name protoasecretis Tarasius as their only
candidate for the patriarchal throne. Thus from the very beginning Tara-
sius was free from accusations of an undue influence of secular authorities
on his appointment. Moreover, Eirene allowed him to make his accept-
ance of the office d e ~ e n don certain conditions.
The patriarchs demands were worded so as to leave no doubt that he
considered wrong the policy of Isaurian emperors who interfered with
the church affairs. That is what he said:
Sire emperor Leo dismantled the images, and the council, when it con-
vened, found them [alreadyl abolished. And since they have been disman-
tled by the imperial hand, the issue has to be examined anew, for they dar-
ed to discard at their will an ancient traditional habit of the Church7

This was the first step in a long and difficult struggle to restore and en-
hance the independence of the Byzantine church, the struggle that was led
by the patriarchs of Constantinople from Tarasius to Photius with an
ingenuity that deceived many of modern scholars into accepting the image
of "Staatskirche" or "caesaropapist party" as an adequate description of
those churchmen and their supporters. That this view is unsufficiently
founded, to put it mildly, will be hopefully shown later in this paper. The
point, however, to be made from the start is that to confront successfully
the encroachments of the secular power, the patriarchs had to have the
whole church firmly behind them. Thus they were forced to fight a tough
battle for the control over the church against groups within it that had no
intention to let patriarchal authority curb what they believed to be their
inalienable prerogatives.
Tarasius' first serious clash happened to be with bishops. Shortly after
his election some iconoclast prelates and their lay supporters began plot-

6 P.458,lO.
7 J. D. MANSI, Sacrormrn Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Vol.XI1, Florentiae
1766, Col. 990 A.
48 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

ting in the capital itself against the planned ecumenical council, which was
to restore holy images. Tarasius moved to stop them - and did so by as-
serting his authority as the head of the church:
but when they were still making illicit gatherings, he informed them,
that "Constantinople has a bishop: without his knowledge you have no
right to make gatherings, for according to the canons you are subject to
deposition". And after hearing this the bishops restrained themselves,
gripped with some fear".

Apparently their fear was not too serious, because the failure of the
first attempt to convene the council was a result of the same conspiracy of
certain bishops with a part of the imperial tagmata 9. Now, the whole
story of that unsuccessful undertaking reveals that Eirene, probably not feel-
ing secure enough, did not back Tarasius but secretly, reserving an option
to distance herself from the patriarch. The plotting bishops apparently
were not courageous fellows of firm convictions, ready to confront the
government as well as the patriarch: shortly afterwards a minimal pressure
along with certain guarantees proved sufficient to make them repent
publicly. So at first, underestimating Eirene's strength and involvement,
they preferred to pretend that it was al1 Tarasius' own venture. This
situation was of course very dangerous for the patriarch, but it also
created unique possibilities for raising the prestige of his office.
Eirene continued to display the same restraint even after her govern-
ment had secured its position and created the conditions that made the
convocation of Nicaenum 11 finally possible. The 7th Ecumenical Council
was the first to be presided over not by emperor but by a patriarch of
Constantinople. The technical reason for that, namely that Eirene was a
woman, should not be taken too seriouslylo: Constantine VI, the nominal
emperor, could very well perform al1 purely ceremonial functions regard-
less of his age; the very absence of both mother and son at al1 but the last
session of the council was of immense significance, and was probably in-
tended to be so. In fact, it shows that Eirene did accept Tarasius' argument
quoted above, for her behaviour looks as if she wanted to create the great-
est contrast possible to the Council of Hieria, which was completely dom-

a M m s r XII, Col. 990 D: ...dM' ÉTL T ~ Sr r a p a o u v a p y d s a h o j v .rro~ovpívwv,i8fiXwo~v

U.~TO~S, ~ T 4L K W V ~ ~ V T L V O ~~ ~TTI KOO~ TL~~~OXVE L '~ K T ~ )ESi 8 f p E W ~ UÚTO~J O ~ KEOTLV b@!J
ü & ~ a VOLELV napaouvaywyás. i r r d K ~ T &TOUS ~ a v ó v a g ~ a 8 a t p É o ~btr r o P á M ~ o 8 ~Kai
. d-
KOÚUU!JT€S O\ ~ ~ ~ T K o~ ~~ oU LT O~ ~U SV ~ U T € L ~ +ÓpC$
UV T L V ~O U O X E ~ ~ V T E S .
9 Ibid.,990 E-991 A.
10 The Pbotian Scbisnz, Cambridge 1948, p.189.
Contrary to F. DVORNIK,
inated by imperial presence. The decisions of Nicaenum 11 would thus
appear as adopted by the Church herself without any externa1 infiuence
whatsoever.
The discrete manner in which the 7th Council handled the question
of personal responsability of the iconoclast emperors is well known. Leo
111 and Constantine V were neither condemned nor indeed mentioned
during the procedures except in a few rather vague and indirect references,
of which the bluntest came from a court official, Petronas: "But they [scil.
iconoclast bishopsl also did al1 this with the emperors' assistance"~~.
Still, the Fathers did their best to reverse the developments in the
church-state relations brought about by the policies of the Isaurian rul-
ers. Admittedly, they did it mainly through canonical legislation, which
will be analysed later - but there is also a highly remarkable statement in
the Refutation of the hoyos of Hieria, read out at the sixth session of the
Council. Responding to the praise lavished upon the emperors by the
council of 754, Tarasius (who was presumably the author of the Refuta-
tion) remarks:
Having rejected the appropriate and befitting praise to the emperors,
they acclaimed them by what is properly applied to Christ our God. They
rather had to describe their courage, their victories over enemy, subjection
of the barbarians... their care for the subjects, judgements, trophies, worldly
improvements, civil dispositions, restoration of cities. These are praise-
worthy acclamations of emperors, which also inspire loyalty into al1 sub-
jects.12

It is hard to see here, as O'Connel does, "a fond recollection" of the

Isaurians' achievmentsl3. It rather looks as a generally valid description of
duties and activities appropriate for secular rulers, with the main idea that
those do not include any dogmatic contributions or spiritual guidance of
the subjects. No reference is made to "the beneficient authority of the em-
perors in ensuring the speedy prevalence of orthodoxy, as defined, over
condemned error"l4. In fact, the same message to the emperors to mind
their own business is conveyed by the solemn declaration of the Council,
that God himself, not pao&ov K P ~ T O S , has delivered us from the idolsls.
On the other hand, on the proclamation of Hieria that "anyone who da-

l1 MANSIXTII, Col. 173 D.

l2 Ibid., Col. 356 A-B.
' 3 P. O'CONNEL, «The Ecclesiology of St.Nicephorus 1", Orientalia Cbristiana Analecta
194, Rome 1972, p.5.
l4 GERO,p.96.
50 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

res... to fabricate... an icon shall be prosecuted under imperial laws"l6, the

Refutation comments:
From these words many [calamitiesl of al1 kind overran the oikumene, a
fierce brutality being exercised by the rulers and by the chiefs themselves,
the alien bishopsl7.

To be sure, it also says that it was the bishops who "taught" the emper-
ors that impiety, but the point is clear: the fathers of Hieria get criticized
for referring ecclesiastical matters to the secular power.
However significant these subleties might be, by far the most important
contribution of Nicaenum 11 as regards church-state relations consists in
the small collection of canonical regulations promulgated without much
fuss. By indicating the problems the Byzantine clergy encountered on day-
to-day basis they reveal the true scale of the state's onslaught on the eccle-
siastical domain (coupled with far-going secularisation and a disastrous col-
lapse of discipline within the church itself) during the reign of iconoclast
emperors. Thus, of 22 canons B ~ X O V T E Sare mentioned in four (3, 6, 10,
12), and in what capacity? They appoint bishops (31, obstruct convocation
of local synods (6), keep private clerics (10) and make bishops and abbots
se11 to them ecclesiastical property (12). No one of these four canons
seem to have anything to do with patriarchal authority, unless we take a
closer look at canon 3. Here is what it says:

That [secularl officials must not appoint a bishop.

Any appointment of a bishop, priest or deacon made by [secularl offi-
cials shall be invalid in accordance with the canon that says: "if any bishop
has come to power in his church with the help of civil rulers, let him be
deposed" along with al1 who hold communion with him ...la

Now, this "new" regulation does nothing but repeat an already existing
one. That happens when the latter has been conspicuously ignored for
some time. However, there is no information of any bishops deposed due
to or accused of, violations of this particular canon (30th apostolic). The
question of the simony, for instance, had a very deep resonance and led

l5 MANSIXIII, Col. 132 A.

l6 Ibid.,Co1.328 D.
l7 Ibid., C01.329 A: &K ~ a ú q so b fls @wfjs ~ o M áTE ~ a ' T
i ~ V T O O ~ T T Uf i v o i ~ o u -
p É q V OL~~XBEV,&IJ.ÓTS E v ~ o v o s& ~ - ~ K E ~T T
O~o S K~UTO~)ULKU.1 T0is BPXOUOLV ~ ~ J T oT ~ Os ~S
& ~ O T ~ ~ O &TLUKÓVOLS.
L S
Is -ES-Poms, 2úvmypa, 11, 37.
to Tarasius' clash with certain abbots and monks, so it could be expected
that this problem too would be raised at the Council if any actual cases
were concerned. Instead, there is complete silence. That might suggest,
that the 3rd canon of Niceanum 11 was not a concession to the radical mo-
nastic party, as is sometimes maintained, but a measure designed to elimi-
nate the practices cited earlier in this paper, when Constantine V appoint-
ed patriarchs just as any of his court officials. Those are indeed the only
instances known to us in which the 30th apostolic canon had been mani-
festly violated during the first iconoclastic period. The Nicaean canon there-
fore could be the most drastic legislative step made by Tarasius in order to
restore and secure the authority of Constantinopolitan patriarchs in the
face of the imperial power19.
Tarasius' goals, however, could be achieved only if he had had pre-
viously consolidated his power within the church of Byzantium. Out of the
two forces mentioned above, the iconoclast hierarchy and the monks, the
former did not cause any more trouble since the bishops in question had
finally understood that it was in their best interest to forget about Icono-
clasm and rally around Tarasius. But the measures needed to win over the
bishops inevitably exasperated the monks, because, as it seems, episcopal
sees was just what they wanted for their own men - the sees that could be
vacated in any significant numbers only by removal of at least those prela-
tes of iconoclast ordination, who were deeper than others implicated either
in heresy or in canonical transgressions, such as simony. So Tarasius'
leniency towards repentant hierarchs, while effectively eliminating icono-
clast opposition, provoked discontent among certain prominent figures of
the iconophile monastic community. How the patriarch outmanoeuvred
his opponents on Nicaenum 11 is described with great insight by M.-F.Au-
zépy, one of whose conclusions is the following:
La présence des moines au concile est la marque d'une volonté de les
integrer 5 l'institution ecclésiastique. Cette volonté ... est certainement pa-
triarcale 5 Nicée 11. 11 s'agit d'établir sur eux un controle strict et de les en-
gager, en tant que corps, dans la politique ecclésiastique ...sous l'autorité
du patriarche, qui veut retrouver sa place de chef de 1'Eglise face au pou-
voir irn~érial.~o

19 Which does not mean that it was not intended to eliminate the influence of secular
officials on ordinations of any leve1 in the future: cf. in Tarasius' letter to Sicilian bishops: ' O
KOU~LKO~S Ü ~ X O U U LT T ~ O U L ~iV
)7 ~ p o u ~ p i x uiTiL
v EL, i m ~ p a n j qTIKKX~U~T,
XEL~OTOV~U ~ a 0 a ~ -
p~ia0w ~i6 i ~UayWv o t ~ u v , W E T ~¿ @ o p ~ u ~ o T~KOLWXB~JTW.
~ (J. B. PITRA,Juris ecclesiastici
Graecorum historia et monumenta, Rornae 1868,Vol. 11, p.312).
20 M.-F. AUZEPY, "La place des moines A Nicée 11(787)", Byzantion 58 (19881, p. 5-21, p. 20.
52 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

Although it is doubtful that Byzantine monks ever acted as any sort of

corporation, at least for the period analysed, there certainly existed an
influential group of abbots, who formed an interna1 opposition to Tarasius
(and to most of his successors over the following century). That group
came to be called "monastic party", which is hardly appropriate, because a
considerable part of the monks, indeed the majority, was always loyal to
the patriarchs: on the other hand, members of this "party" were for the
most part prevented from occupying episcopal sees, and not just by lack
of desire. The distinction "monks as such vs. bishops as such" therefore is
in my opinion erroneous and misleading. For the purpose of convenience
1 shall cal1 the group in question "the Studite party", because two of its
greatest leaders, Sabas and Theodore, had been higumeni of the monas-
tery of Studiou in Constantinople: hopefully, further analysis will elucidate
some of the motives that drove their opposition.
The first open conflict erupted when Sabas of Studiou and some other
monks refused to consent to Tarasius' absolution of simoniac bishops
after one year of penitencezl. It did not, however, create unsurmountable
problems for the patriarch, since Sabas did not have much following.
Plato of Sakkudion remained in full accord with Tarasius - a circumstance
that might offer a partial explanation for the further developments. That
rein-statement of simoniac bishops was forced upon Tarasius by Eirene
was secret to nobody22. Now, Plato and his nephew Theodore were
apparently linked to the empress by more than just mutual sympathy. The
fact that Constantine VI'S mistress Theodote was Plato's and Theodore's
relative is frequently mentioned - but far more important, 1 think, is that
she had previously been Eirene's lady-in-waiting. Whatever grounds might
motivate the choice of a mistress, the choice of a lady-in-waiting is certainly
based on reasons of personal and political loyalty. If it was that loyalty
that made Plato forgo canonical irregularities in the case of simoniac
bishops, the subsequent conflicts could appear in a different light.
By the time the strife over the second marriage of Constantine VI erupt-
ed, the political situation had changed a lot. Now Eirene was deprived of
power and Constantine VI reigned as a sole d e r . In 795 he divorced his
wife Mary of Amnia and made her enter a nunnery on the grounds that
she was trying to poison him. Then Constantine married the already men-
tioned Theodote. Tarasius did not approve of the divorce and refused to
perform the wedding ceremony, but he permitted or even ordered Joseph,

21 Berlin-N.Y. 1992, Ep. 38, 34 sq.

See Theodori Studitae epistulae, ed. G. FATOUROS,
22 Ibid., 53 and 57.
higumenos of the monastery of Kathara, to marry Constantine and Theo-
dote. Plato and Theodore then disrupted communion both with the emper-
or and the patriarch.
The most common interpretation of these events is that the Studites
fought for strict enforcement of the canons, whereas Tarasius applied
"economy", a dispensation, which in the eyes of his opponents had gone
too far. Formally speaking, however, the patriarch did not break any canon:
the Byzantine ecclesiastical, as well as secular, law did permit a divorce if
the wife was plotting against her husband's life or was involved in high
treason (which in this case coincided). Admittedly, Constantine's charges
were patently false - but Tarasius was in no position, or so he thought, to
declare his sovereign a liar. Plato and Theodorus of course act-ed as they
did at least partly because of their allegiance to Eirene (and 1 strongly
doubt that this allegiance was motivated by the empresse's promonastic
sympathies rather than by their position in the complex network of
personal and family loyalties that ran through the Byzantine ruling élite).
But there is also a hint of different conceptions of patriarchal author-ity
which at this point for the first time openly confronted each other.
From one of Theodore the Studite's letters written at that period23 we
learn that his opponents considered the issue as primarily concerning
hierarchical relations in the church: namely, they suggested that Theodore
or Plato had no right to criticize Tarasius (except in matters of faith), be-
cause the latter, as patriarch, was their spiritual head. Theodore's reply is
very interesting. He naturally argues that he has every right to reproach his
superior whenever the canons are violated, but it is the reasons and the
patristic evidence he cites, that is really remarkable. The passages from
St.BasillsMoralia that Theodore quotes actually pertain to relationships in-
side a monastey. The patriarch's role is thus perceived strictly in terms of
monastic spiritual guidance, in which there was no place for a single head
of the church exercising supreme authority in al1 matters except dogmatic.
To make substitution easier Theodore presents the position of his oppo-
nent (Stephen a secretis) like this:
It is not befitting that a superior, that is an arch-shepherd,would be re-
proached by anyone for doing, by ignorance or voluntarily, something for-
bidden, with the exception of faith, in other commandments of the Lord.24
54 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

The word ~~o~pcvápxqc, "arch-shepherd", apparently used by Stephen,

is tacitly substituted by í-rpom~hc,with its distinctly monastic flavour (the
term was frequently used from 6th century onwards to designate an ab-
bot). Theodore then can adduce some evidence from Basil, who employs
npoeo~hcin the sense of "monastic superior". This is a curious evidence
of how the monastic pattern of behaviour is applied to the church as a
whole. Although Theodore himself later made some corrections towards
more mainstream ecclesiology, on severa1 occasions his utterings still
show the same concept of the patriarch as a spiritual father rather than su-
preme hierarchical authority. Naturally, such point of view had clear impli-
cations for Constantine' affair: a spiritual father had to chastise his "son's"
actions with no regard to rank or power.
After Constantine Vi was overthrown and blinded in 797 Tarasius had
to give full satisfaction to the Studites: according to Theodore, he not only
deposed Joseph of Kathara, but also apologized for his previous actions25.
That, of course, was a major setback for Tarasius personally and for the
patriarchal authority in general, even more so since it could not be revers-
ed as long as Eirene remained in power. Tarasius virtually dissapears from
the sources between 797 and 802, and it is possible that Eirene, being dis-
satisfied with his behaviour in the dynastic struggle, did not trust him any
more. Thus the apology and deposition of Joseph could very well have
been forced upon the patriarch. There is a curious notice in Theophanes
about the coup that put logothete Nicephorus in Eirene's place (it should
be kept in mind that the chronographer not that much liked Eirene as he
hated Nicephorus). After Eirene had been arrested, Nicephorus immedia-
tely proceeds to the Great Church to be crowned, while the populace was
"cursing both the crowning and the crowned and al1 those who rejoiced
with them"26. Apparently Tarasius (6 o ~ í + o v accepted
) the fa11 of his for-
mer benefactress with relief, if not with joy!
One of later versions of the first phase of the "Moechian" schism is
represented in Ignatius' Vita Tarasii,written after 842. Ignatius is notor-
iously cautious and therefore uninformative, but his interpretation of the
events deserves attention, because it fits, as we shall see later, into a more
general pattern. Thus Ignatius describes at length how Tarasius boldly re-
sisted the pressure put on him by Constantine Vi, but then abruptly termi-
nates the story with the following sentence: "for it is not meet and right to

25 Laudatio Platonis, PG 99, 833 C. (V. GRUMEL,

"Les Regestes des actes du Patriarcat de
Constantinople",Chalcedon 1936,N.369).
26 Theophanes, p.476,26.
commend to memory what happened thereafter, as it does not in any way
benefit the readers." Ignatius' idea is clear: whatever disgrace happened, it
was entirely the emperor's fault and must be imputed on him, whereas the
patriarch did his best to defend the canons. A later source even reports
that Constantine threatened to revive Iconoclasm27: not al1 that plausible
information, as Dobroklonsky and Henry think28, it is still characteristic in
putting al1 the blame on the emperor.
Tarasius was prevented by illness from exploiting the possibilities of-
fered by the political changes for strengthening his position. But after his
death in 806, the struggle for the supreme authority within the church start-
ed anew with increased acerbity. The emperor Nicephorus, although he in
al1 probability had already made his choice for Tarasius' successor (namely
Nicephorus, formerly a civil servant, who quit the court after Eirene's coup
of 797, presumably as a supporter of Constantine VP), in order to pre-
serve decorum requested al1 prominent ecclesiastics to communicate their
opinion. Plato of Studiou took the request seriously and started to lobby
energetically for his nephew Theodore30. That, along with the Studites'
inambiguously expressed disapproval of a layman's ordination, made the
emperor believe that Theodore and Plato could cause disturbance during
the inauguration of the new patriarch. So emperor Nicephorus imprisoned
them and some of their followers for 24 days. However, no new schism
ensued at that point, and the real conflict began only when the issue of
Joseph of Kathara was reopened.
The actual impact of this issue on the Byzantine church can be prop-
erly understood only if we establish the motives of each particular action
and determine, which of the sides initiated it. This task is by no means
easy, but it can be managed if two principles are applied: the first is famil-
iar cui bono, and the second - that nothing should be too readily taken at
face value.
There is no doubt that the first move carne from the emperor Nicepho-
rus. Joseph of Kathara happened to have done a great service to him by
mediating the surrender of the rebellious Bardanes Turkos. The emperor
therefore used the ascension of a new patriarch to reward Joseph by rein-
stating him in his priestly rank. This was accomplished by a synod of 15

27 Narratio de sanctis patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro, PG 99, 1849-54; 1852 D.

28 P. HENRY, "The Moechian Controversy and the Constantinopolitan Synod of January
A.D. 809". Jounzal of 7heological Studies 20 (1969, p.495-522; p.501, n.2; A. DOBROKLONSKY,
"Prep. Theodor, ispovednik i igumen Studijskij", Odessa, 1913, Vol.1, p.355.
29 P. ALEXANDER, 7he Patriarcb Nicephorus of Constantinople. Oxford 1958, p.63.
3O Laudatio Platonis, 837 B.
56 DMITRY E . AFINOGENOV

bishops in 806. Theodore the Studite was probably present at the synod
and kept silence31. He did not, of course, acknowledge the rehabilitation
of Joseph, but at the first stage the Studite opposition was clearly intended
to be as mild and unprovocative as possible. It is commonly believed that
the Studites "suceeded in avoiding communion with al1 who concelebrated
the liturgy with Joseph of Kathara", including the patriarch himself32. On
the other hand, it is also very well known that Theodore's brother Joseph
in 807 became archbishop of Thessalonica, which at the least implied
regular and public commemoration of Nicephorus at the liturgy. Thus the
Studites' stance this time was very far from the position Plato and Theo-
dore took after Constantine VI'S infamous second marriage both in terms
of publicity (the emperor and the patriarch were apparently unaware of
what was going on until 808), and ecclesiastical severity. In fact, Theo-
dore's words "o6 npbs TOUS E~CTEPETS fip6.b ~ECTTTÓTUS i) XÓyos rfjs d-
~ o ~ v w ~ q o í a might
~ " 3 3 mean that the Studites were simply avoiding liturgies
at St.Sophia because Joseph used to concelebrate there as the econom of
that church34. So al1 reprisals against Theodore and his followers must be
measured against this extremely moderate form of dissent.
The outward course of the events that led to the last and the fiercest
phase of the "Moechian" schism can be quite easily reconstructed from
Theodore's letters, and since that work has already been done by, among
others, Dobroklonsky, Alexander and Henry, it will be sufficient to sum-
marize only the main points. In the first half of 808 Joseph of Thessalonica
came to Constantinople to visit his brother Theodore of Studiou. Since he
failed to appear at a single patriarchal liturgy during his severa1 months'
stay, the emperor dispatched an official to Studiou in order to find out the
reason. The whole thing came out and the Studites were warned that the
emperor was utterly displeased by their behaviour. Still, no action was ta-
ken until late 808, when Nicephorus 1 returned from a military campaign.
The monastery of Studiou was surrounded by troops and four leading
monks, including Joseph of Thessalonica, were taken into custody at the
convent of St.Sergius. It should be pointed out, that any force that was ap-
plied to the Studites before January 809 was used only to isolate them and
to compel to make peace with the patriarch: none of those measures can

Ep.43,25sq.
32 p.507.
HENRY,
33 Theod. Ep. 22,4 cf. 21,ll. In ep.25,40 Theodore explicitly says that if Nicephorus
sought cornmunion with him, he would not hesitate to hold cornrnunion with the patriarch
unconditionally.
3* Theod. Ep.555,47.
be interpreted as outright punishment. At the same time Theodore
continued to write letters professing his loyalty towards both Nicephori
and insisting that he had no intention to disturb ecclesiastical peace, as far
as he was allowed to keep his reservations against the reinstatement
of Joseph. The situation changed drastically only after the so called
"Moechian" Syn-od of January 809. It is therefore only by establishing,
whose interests this svnod served and bv whom it had been initiated. that
we can understand the underlying reasons of the second "Moechian"
schism and its implications for the patriarchal power.
The abrupt change in the tone of Theodore's letters from humble and
conciliatory to agressive and virulent, that followed the Synod, along with
his already mentioned original reluctance to make his oppositon public,
indicate that the initiative did not come from Studiou. We are therefore left
with two possibilities: the emperor and the patriarch. The latter one seems
completely out of question, considering many unambiguous statements of
the sources and almost universal scholarly consensus35 that point at the
emperor Nicephorus as the chief villain. The actual picture, however, is
more comnlicated.
Three important sources explicitly ascribe to the emperor the crucial
role in the developments of 808-809: Theophanes' Chronography, Theo-
dore's of Studiou Laudatio Platonis and Wta Deodori bv monk Michael36.
Of these of the least value is the account of Theophanes, since this author
was poised to charge Nicephorus 1 with as many wrongdoings as it was
humanely posible. As we have seen earlier, Theophanes' hatred was so
great, that it sometimes even prevailed in his mind over the respect to-
wards such people as patriarch Tarasius, whom Theophanes supported
without reservations during the first "Moechian" schism. Two other ac-
counts will be dealt with later; now let us see if there is any contradicting
evidence.
First of all, if it indeed was the emperor who had inveigled his name-
sake patriarch into that ugly and damaging scandal that the second "Moe-
chian" schism eventually became, it is a bit difficult to explain, why vir-
tually al1 the authors closely associated with patriarch Nicephorus and his
partisans speak about emperor Nicephorus with respect and sometimes
even fondness, as does the future patriarch Methodius in his Life of Theo-
phanes37 (despite the fact that the Life's hero actually loathed that mon-
arch!). Second, the testimony of Theodore the Studite himself is far from

35 Cf., e.g. ALEXAVDER,p. 9 1 and HENRY,

p.509.
36 Alias Vita B, PG 99, 233-328.
58 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

uniform. Consider, for instance, his famous sentence so often quoted by

scholars dealing with the "Moechian" controversy and church-state rela-
tions in Byzantium. Describing the patriarch's behaviour during the period
between disclosure of the Studite opposition and emperor Nicephorus' re-
turn from the campaign of 808, Theodore writes:

The last three words, or rather the way they were being translated, can
serve as a good demonstration of how an a pmom formed concept can
preclude correct assessment of evidence. Here are three apparently inde-
pendent renderings from renowned scholars:

Martin39 Alexande140 Henry4l

lthe patriarch isl in the em- in al1 he is Caesar's steward he is Caesar's handyman in
peror's pocket every respect

One fresh look is enough to see that al1 three are inaccurate: T ~ ~ . L E U Ó ~ E V O S
means "keeping in reserve", whereas n á v ~ ais the object of a transitive
a ~Accusativus
verb ~ a p ~ e i k dnot , relationis!Consequently, here is the cor-
rect translation:
keeping everything in reserve for caesar/f2
This can as well be interpreted as the patriarch's determination to refer the
matter before the emperor in order to demand harsher measures against
the Studites - which, of course, requires an entirely different perspective.
Let us therefore have a closer look at the letter 26 where these words are
found. Theodore has no news for his correspondent because everybody is
waiting for the emperor to return from the field. Theodore meanwhile is
trying to appeal to two influential persons: the patriarch and a court monk
Symeon. Their positions, although essentialy the same, have some interest-
ing nuances. Symeon is saying different things al1 the time (26-27), but one

37 Methodii Vita neophanis, ed.V. V . L A ~ S H E V,

Mémoires de llAcademie des Sciences de
Russie, VIIIe série, Classe Hist.-Phil., XIII, pt.4 (1918), p. 26, 6sq.
38 Ep.26,24.
39 E. J. MARTIN,A History of the Iconoclast Controveny, L. 1930, p. 153.
40 ALEXANDER, p.89.
41 HENRY, p.509, n.1.
42 O'CONNEL, p.43: the interpretation, however, is similar to that of the others.
is constant about him: he always thinks and pursues what is desirable for
the ruiers ( i ~ ~ i v+povWv
a Kai CT@V ¿ i
&+Era T ~ V T W S roig K ~ ~ T O U -O L
the last term obviously designates the emperors, Nicephorus and Staura-
kios). Thus we may assume that he reflects more or less accurately the
mood prevalent at the court. But Theodore says very clearly that Symeon's
behaviour is ambiguous. Moreover, Nicephorus 1 himself requested from
Theodore a written apology, which suggests that the emperor had not yet
made up his mind definitively. This taken into account, the patriarch's po-
sition looks much more stiff and uncompromising, for he rejects any nego-
tiations43. That is why 1 think that the interpretation of T ~ ~ L E U Ó ~ E V O V
m i m a ~ a i o a poffered
~ above is the most plausible.
Now, did Theodore of Studiou really consider emperor Nicephorus
prime mover of the whole affair? The eloquent account in Laudatio Plato-
nis, ch.35-39 strongly supports this view (which is the main reason it has
scarcely been called in question). Yet other Theodore's writings suggest a
different picture. In one of later letters, for instance, the Studite explains to
his correspondents, that liturgical commemoration of deceased emperors
depends solely on their profession of orthodox faith, not on their qualities
as human beings. Then he enumerates notoriously sinful emperors, includ-
ing Constantine VI, who are nevertheless being commemorated, and
says: "and Nicephorus, but not as money-grubber"44. So the main vice of
emperor Nicephorus in Theodore's eyes was nothing else but greed. If
Theodore had regarded Nicephorus as the initiator of the so-called "Moe-
chian" heresy, he would not probably commemorate him at all, or at least
he would not point out greed as his foremost sin. There is another pas-
sage where Theodore mentions the emperor's relation to the Synod of
809. In ep.48 the Studite quotes Nicephorus as saying that he approved
the Synod and explaining on what grounds45. The word used is h ~ o 4 p a y í -
[ E L Vwhich
, in Theodore's usage signifies legitimate participation of an
emperor in ecclesiastical decisions46. Finally, in ep.553, pertaining to the
period of 809-811, Theodore bluntly calls patriarch Nicephorus "here-
siarch". Together with al1 other arguments cited it makes me believe that
Theodore was always perfectly aware, that the Synod of 809 was the pa-
triarch's undertaking.
Now it is time to examine whether this supposition stands a test by
the cui bono principle. The decisions of the Synod are one of the trickiest

43 See also Theod. Ep. 25,15-27.

@ Ep.443,55-56.
45 Ep.48,118.
6 Ep.532,26 and 478,66.
60 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

problems of the 9th century Byzantine history, since they have to be restor-
ed from Theodore the Studite's letters, where the matter is almost com-
pletely obfuscated by angry rhetorics. The approaches range from maxi-
malist, as that of Dobroklonsky, who counted 7 articles47, to minimalist, as
the entry in Grumel's Regestes, which mentions only one48. The most bal-
anced is the opinion of Henry, thorouhgly substantiated in an article dedi-
cated entirely to the Synod of 809. Here is his version of the Synod's de-
crees47
1. Confirmation of the earlier restoration of Joseph of Kathara.
2. Anathema to those who do not accept the economies of the
saints.
3. Deposition of Archbishop Joseph of Thessalonica to the rank
of priest.
Although this is probably what was actually promulgated, Henry in
my opinion is too hasty in disposing of some other items listed by Dobro-
klonsky. The latter adduces quite considerable amount of evidence to sup-
port each one of them, so his point of view deserves a more detailed eval-
uation.
The items rejected by Henry are:
1. (Dobroklonsky's #2) Church regulations sometimes have to
be omitted or modified when applied to emperors.
2. (3) The hierarchs are empowered to handle canon law at
their discretion.
We cannot dismiss either of the two since they are recurrent in Theo-
dore's letters50 and it is highly unlikely that he had taken them out of thin
air. There must have been something in the synodal documents that gave
him an opportunity to deduce his far-reaching accusations (reproduced
even in a letter to the pope, hardly a place for totally unfounded specula-
tions). Yet it is impossible to believe, as Dobroklonsly does, that the Syn-
od indeed decreed that emperors are not bound by the canons, because
the inevitable conclusion from such a decree would be that Constantine's
marriage was lawful - a complete nonsense, considering that emperor Ni-
cephorus himself had earlier declared it invalid according to civil lawsl. In

47 DOBROKLONSKY, p.645.
48 N.378.
49 H E N R Y ,518.
~.
50 See DOBROKLONCKY, p.638 and 641
what context then could the emperors appear in synodal proceedings? 1
can imagine only the following logic: an obstinate imperial will constitutes
a force majeure, which is a sufficient reason for economy, except when
fundamental principles of Orthodoxy are at stake. If this indeed was the
Synod's reasoning52, it is the same pattern that we have already encounter-
ed on at least one occasion while dealing with the reign of Tarasius: the
emperor is the main and sole culprit, whereas the patriarch was just "re-
deeming the time", using economy to prevent graver damage to the
church. It is important to understand that this discourse in no way served
the interests of Kaisemdee: while it enabled church leadership to avoid
confrontation over certain imperial actions, the entire responsibility for
those actions was shifted toward the secular ruler, so that at the first
opportunity (usually after the emperor's death) the economy could be re-
voked as extorted by tyrannical pressure, the hierarchs remaining clean
and unsullied. Exactly the same tactic was used by the pariarchal propa-
ganda after the change of political situation under Michael Rhangabe: this
is, 1 believe, the origin of the legend that ascribed the initiative in the sec-
ond "Moechian" schism to emperor Nicephorus53. Laudatio Platonis shows
that this version was pro fomna accepted by Theodore the Studite - as he
wanted to make peace with patriarch Nicephorus, it was the only way to
justify resumption of communion, "Moechian heresy" buried and
forgotten54.
The second issue as defined by Dobroklonsky concerns the authority
of the hierarchy in applying the church law. 1 fail to see any reason why it
could not be raised by the Synod. If it was, it would have been only one
more affirmation of the principle which Theodore sought to refute in his
already mentioned letter to Stephen a secretis. The problem with both
Henry's and Dobroklonsky's interpretations of the synodal decree is that
each is formulated as a list of separate points: in al1 probability, that was

5l Ep. 31,54. Cf. HENRY,p. 509 n.1.

52 In fact, Theodore calls it "their justification": K ~ TO
L S ~ ~ a í w pab-rols,
a id TWV Baut-
XÉwv @ q d xpfjvat TrapapXímlv ~ o b sE~~YYEXLKOUS vópous (Ep.36, 25sq).
53 Vita B of Theodore the Studite by Michael and Nawatio de Tarasio et Nicephoro
that contain this version are both clearly propagandistic docurnents poised to underscore
perpetua1 concord between Theodore and the patriarchs. Cf. E. von Dossc~üTz,"Methodius
und die Studiten", BZ 18 (1909), S.63-70 and HENRY, p.498 n.2.
54 As follows from Ep.56, Theodore had problerns explaining to his followers that they
should again acknowledge Nicephorus as their legitimate patriarch. The argurnent goes:
iKn08dV ')'íyov€, 81'0% 4 G ~ x ó v o ~iaV
h € l 8?l... K~@%¿?s i ~ ~ h p bfipxBr\,
í a P~Ppáp~u-
Tal fi ~ i p ~...(36-38),
j q with obvious allusion to the emperor Nicephorus, not to Joseph of
Kathara, as Fatouros states after Alexander (p.97) et al.
62 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

not so in the actual document, unless it was composed as a series of can-

ons (which is highly unlikely). If we assume that the Synod produced a
formal statement that consisted of actual decisions (which might very well
be those formulated by Henry) and an explanation of the grounds on
which those decisions had been adopted, the discrepancy between the
two theories would be reduced to a minimum. The contents of the syn-
odal declaration could then look like this:
Since the emperor's desire was obstinate and intractable, and in such
cases canonical injunctions cannot be enforced, most blessed St.Tarasius,
exercising his right as the archpriest and in order to prevent greater dam-
age to the church, applied a temporary economy following examples of the
saints and ordered Joseph higumenos of Kathara to perform the marriage
of Constantine VI and Theodote. We therefore confirm Joseph in his
priestly rank55. Anathema to those who do not accept the economies of the
saints.
In Ep.36 Theodore refutes the Synod point by point under numbers
("the second...", "about the thirdsb), and the order is: 1) about the emper-
ors; 2)Tarasius' economy = economies of the saints, anathema to those
who think otherwise; 3) canonical authority of the hierarchs. This corre-
sponds perfectly to the above reconstruction.
Now, if our hypothesis is correct, there can be no doubt, what purpose
was served by that kind of decree. It was certainly aimed at further
strengthening the patriarchal authority, both by affirming that the final judge-
ment in canonical cases belongs to the hierarchs (and especially to the
highest of them, the patriarch), and by threatening with anathema those
who would dare to criticize actions of the ruling patriarch or his orthodox
predecessors. This last feature of continuity deserves special attention. As
we shall see later, beginning with Nicephorus, the patriarchs of Constanti-
nople were to assert their own authority by demanding loyalty and respect
towards their predecessors.
Thus, my view of the second "Moechian" schism can be summarized
as follows. Emperor Nicephorus wanted to reward Joseph of Kathara and
asked his namesake patriarch to reinstate Joseph in the priesthood. The
patriarch had no objections and concelebrated liturgy with the higumenos
for two years. For that reason the Shdites, who considered the restoration
of Joseph illegitimate, began to avoid liturgies in St.Sophia (of which he

55 It must be rerninded that Joseph was possibly only suspended, but never deposed -
see Henry, p.503, n.2.
56 Ep. 36,63 and 123.
was econom). In 808 that came out, and the patriarch used personal invol-
vement of the emperor (that resulted from his original request) to reverse
the major setback the patriarchate had suffered in the first "Moechian"
schism. Patriarch Nicephorus convened a synod that formally proclaimed
Tarasius' conduct correct and appropriate and anathematized those who
challenged patriarchal authority. The emperor then had no choice but to
confirm the decisions and to suppress opposition by force. We know that
patriarch Nicephorus did not shun from using imperial force against the
enemies of the church - it was the emperors who used to resist such de-
mands57. There is plenty of evidence that emperor Nicephorus felt uneasy
about the situation: hence his repeated attempts to make the Studites com-
promise, the last undertaken just before his fatal expeditions against the
Bulgars in 811. At the same time Plato the Studite was recalled from the
exile allegedly due to ill health. Yet from the patriarch we have only one
rather enigmatic message sent to Theodore through the guardian of his
prison: "When we needed you to be here for our assistance, you left end
established yourself there. 1 envy you"5*. Alexander believes it be a suffi-
cient proof that Nicephorus "was obeying orders"59 (presumably the em-
peror's). However, it is not clear what kind of "assistance" Nicephorus had
in mind. There is absolutely no evidence that he ever tried to persuade the
emperor to depose Joseph. It may well be that the patriarch alluded to the
tolerant policy of emperor Nicephorus in regard to various heretics, which
Theodore could help the patriarch to overturn, if both ecclesiastics acted
together. Anyhow, this only instance is not enough to conclude that pa-
triarch Nicephorus was in fact unwilling to take al1 the measures that so
patently enhanced his own authority as the head of the church.
Nicephorus' efforts to unite the Byzantine church under strong patriar-
chal leadership ended in a seeming failure. The Studite opposition proved
impregnable and emperor Michael 1 Rangabe (who favoured Theodore
and consulted him even on most important political matters) mediated an
agreement under which Joseph had to be deposed again and the patriarch
made an apology to the Studites (using emperor Nicephorus as a scape-
goat). However, the defeat notwithstanding, the ideas advocated by Tara-
sius and his successor began to take firm roots in Byzantium. An impor-
tant and mainly neglected evidence of that can be found in a canonical
treatise on the election of bishops, attributed to Euthymius of Sardis

57 Theophanes, p.488-489 and esp.495.

58 Ep. 43,94sq.
59 Alexander, p.95.
64 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

(d.831) and published by J.Darrouzes60. The publisher considers the au-

thorship of Euthymius quite possible61, so the work could have been writ-
ten anywhere between 787 and 815, that is, under Tarasius or Nicephonis.
The treatise is remarkable in severa1 aspects. First of all, it is explicitly
stated, that a bishop can be chosen from laymen62. This point corroborates
Darrouzes opinion, since it makes any dating after Photian affair highly
improbable (for the Byzantines then had to appease the pope by promis-
ing that laymen would not be ordained bishops any more). On the other
hand it shows unambiguously that the author was not on the Studite side.
Second, the decisive influence in the election procedure is given to the pa-
triarch, who is called "archbishop of al1 churches and the father of all".
Third, the role envisaged for the emperor is negligible, being limited to
the convocation of a major council in case of an incurable disagreement.
The provision against a possible misconduct on the part of patriarch is es-
pecially interesting. If the patriarch in appointing a bishop is guided by re-
prehensible motives, such as personal favour, or leaves the see vacant for
too long, archbishops and metropolitans (and only they) may reproach the
delinquents. If the latter do not accept the judgement, the critics63 should
ask the nilers (TOV KP~TOÚVTOV) to convoke a synod "with patriarchal au-
thority", which is supposedly the only institution that can overrule the pa-
triarch. It is easy to notice that there is no place for rebellious actions of
any higumeni or simple monks in this procedure.
Besides relentless efforts to establish the patriarch's predominance with-
in the church, Nicephonis strove to use any opportunity to increase his
influence on the government. From both emperors who came to power
while he was already patriarch, Nicephorus requested a written profession
of orthodoxy: something that had been long forgotten in Byzantium. The
patriarch evidently tried to make it an established practice, since he did it
not only in the case of allegedly suspicious Leo V, but in that of Michael
Rangabe as well, although the latter's piety was beyond any doubt. Under
Michael Nicephorus even attempted to appropriate some functions of the
secular power, when he demanded, as has been already mentioned, a ca-

J. DARROUZES,
60 Documents inédits d'ecclésiologie byzantine. Paris 1966, p.108-115.
61Ibid., p.10-11.
62Ibid., p.108,17.
63 The text is not entirely clear: it is possible to translate "patriarchs" as well: EMJ-
veu8a~ K ~ V O V L K ~ SU d T ~ VTOU rráBovs ~aBapevóv~ov pq~po~roX~~Wv ~ a ~i ~ X L E ~ L O K ~
Ei 66 pj mjv ~ K E ~ V W KV ~ T ~ ~ ~ X O L VK PT ~OU L V ,U T T O ~ ~ U EaLh 6 v rpoo~aXEioBa~napa ~ 6 v
~ p a ~ o ú v ~uúvo8ov
wv i ~ í p a vr r a ~ p ~ a p x ~icovuías
Gs ... ~ a pi ~ ~ ' a i i ~TOÚTWV,
6v %v T+V ~ p í -
ULV K d 6 s ~ E Y Ó V T W V 06 K ~ T E ~ ~ ~ ~ KV~ TV OO V, L K ~ KS P ~ V F U...
~ ~(~.112,29-114,4).
L
pita1 punishment against certain heretics. Theophanes, defending this
move, argues against those who deny for the archpriests the right to sen-
tence to death64, which indicates that the patriarch's action was perceived
as something more than a simple advice or suggestion.
The biggest obstacle, however, to Nicephorus' ecclesiastical policy re-
mained the Studites. It took a real disaster, the second outbreak of Icono-
clasm, to persuade at least the most sincere and intelligent of them,
St.Theodore in the first place, that the church does need unity and strong
leadership to withstand effectively the pressure of the imperial power. The
second part of this paper will deal with the orthodox response to the
second Iconoclasm and with the conflicts that immediately followed the
restoration of orthodoxy.

Dmitry E. AFINOGENOV
Bezbozhny pereulok 16-32
129010 Moscú
Rusia
 Part 11
From the Second Outl->realtof Iconoclasm to the I k a t h of Methodios

The reign of Micliael 1 Rhangabe entailed considerable setbaclts for

Patriarcli Nicephoros personally as well as for his see. The decisions of tlie
Council of 809 had to be abandoned for tlie time being and the patriarch's
attempts to use secular authorities against the enemies of the Church failed
because of the Stiidites' counteractionl. Ilowever, the latter's victory was by
far not complete. Nicephoros ltept his rank, the "moechian heresy" was
quickly pushed aside and Theodore was forcect to use al1 his authority to
persuade his followers not to insist on the deposition of the patriarcli2. Tlie
late Emperor Nicephoros was iised as a convenient scapegoat -ranli-and-
file supporters of Theodore, who were certainly not aware of tlie complic-
ated court intrigues of 808-811, could very well buy it. Of course, the lea-
ders of 110th sides did not mean it too seriously, so there was no dumnatio
memoriue 5 .
The compromise achieved uncler Michael 1 was certainly a conseqiience
of a certain balance of influence between Theodore and Nicephoros. As we
can gather from Theophanes, the patriarch was loyal to Staurakios, the son
and heir of Emperor Nicephoros, until it became dangerous for everybody~.

lheophanis C'hmzographia, ed. C . »ii BOOR. Lipsiae 1883, p.495.

7heodori Studilae epistulae, ecl. G . F~lminos.Herlin-N.Y. 1992, lip.56 - cf. Iip. 269;
P. AI.EXANUER. %e Putriarch Nicephorus oj'C'onstuntinople. Oxford 1958, p.97.
3 See thc first part of tl-iis paper: D. AFINOGKNO\J.
" K w v o ~ a v ~ ~ v o Ú r r o&rríD~onov
hs ~ X E L :
"She Rise of the Patriarchal Power in I3yzantium from Nicaenum 11 to Epanagoga. Part I: Fron~
Nicaeriuin 11 to the Second Outbr~akof Iconoclasrn." Eytheiu 15 (19941, p.45-65, p.61.
7heophanis Chronographia, p.492. ?'he chronographer tries lo dissociate Patriarch
Nicephoros from Emperor Nicephoros antl liis son, whom he cordially hates, but tlie indirect
evidence is quite inambiguous.
 Only then Nicephoros' relations with inagister Theoktistos, who advocated
the overthrow of Stauraltios from the very beginning, changecl froin "great
enmity" to "friendship1'5.It is hard to believe that this friendship persisted
after the coup which put Michael on the tlirone. Michael, in his turn, "slav-
ishly obeyed" Theoktistosb, so it is no wonder that he supporteci the Studites
and not tlie patriarch. On the other hand, Michael partly owed his ascen-
sion to Nicephoros, so, weak as he was, he probably did not dare to alie-
nate such a powerful figure.
As for the Church-State relations, the reign of this emperor offered
unique opportunities to the Church leadership, since they could now exer-
cise direct influence on both home and foreign affairs7. Tlie opportunity,
however, was squandered largely due to the continuing discord between
the patriarch and the Studites and to Theodore's political incompetence.
Admittedly, they were not given much time, for the sliift of the power
balance in favour of the Church was too steep arid could not but provoke
a reaction very soon. Iconoclast sentiments among the populace of Coristan-
tinople were already on the rises.
The crisis finally broke out in 813 when the Byzantine army suffered a
severe defeat at the hand of the Bulgarians at Versiniltia. Emperor Michael
fled to the capital, wliile Leo the Arinenian, strategos of the Anatolikon
theme, was proclaimed emperor by tlie army. It is remarkable, that at this
point both sides recognized Nicephoros as the only arbiter. Michael asked
for liis advice concerning the atxlication ancl Leo sent him a letter with assur-
ances of orthodoxy and reyuested his prayers for coming to the thrones.
The questiori now was, whether Leo, once ernperor, was going to tolerate
such a powerful source of ~oliticalintluence beside himself.
The very first political inove of Leo V in my view was meant to show
the Byzantine society the prevalence of the Empire over the Churcli in tlie
language of symbols and cereinonies. The move in yucstion concerned the
pleclge of oithodoxy that Leo was supposed to subscribe before his cor-
onation. Tliough this is one of the rnost obscure and confused questions in
the Byzantine histoiy, it is essential to elucidate it in order to get a better
idea o f Leo's political motives.
First of all, tliere is no evidence that any of Byzantine einperors after
Leo 111 (717-741) gave a pledge like that. Therefore the re-establishment of

5 Ibid., p.492,28 sq.

Ibid., p.500,l: SeGovXo,~ívoc O E O I ~ O T W
payíu~pq.
7 Ibid.,p.498.
For cletails see ALI~XANIIIIII,
p. 111-125.
9 lbeophawzs Chf*onogruphb,resp. p.339,19 sq. and p.502,20
 KRNZ I AN 1 1 NOTIIOAI Z t l l l CKOIION t X t l (11) 45

the practíce by Patriarch Nicephoros in 811 when Michael came to power

niust be regarded as a conscious measure that l-iad sorne definite institu-
tional aims, al1 the more so as there could be no doubt about Michael's right
beliefs. As for Leo, some of our sources pretend tliat Nicephoros was sus-
picious atmut his evil intentions and wanted to get some guarantees in
aclvancelo. As a matter of Fact, liowever, the dernand of a written oath not
to change anything in tlie church was but an outward sign and confirma-
tion of the gains that the Church had made in her relationship with the secu-
lar power by that time.
There is no reason to question Theophanesl account of the letter with
assurances of orthodoxy tl-iat Leo sent to Nicephoros while still outside
Constantinople, though no other source mentiones it. Tt is also very proh-
able that tlie patriarch dispatched to Leo a delegation of 1)isliopswith a pre-
pared text of tlie oath even before tlie coronationll. From this point on,
however, a complete confusion sets in. Some texts maintain that Leo signed
the document on the spot. Others simply say tl~atLeo gave the oath when
he ascended the throne ( i v T@ PaotXtCoa~a h ó v ) , without specifying, was
it before or after thatl2, Still others insist that the emperor at first promised
to sign the oath after the coronation but then refused to do it at alll3. l'he
reconstruction of J.Bury, accepted also by V.Grumel and W.Treadgold, does
not look particularly s u c c e s s f u l ~The
~ point is that one of the Ixst sources
on tliis period available, the so called Scnptor Incertus, in his mentions of
Leols oath uses technical terms ~ a B v ~ r o y p á $ ia6~~,ó ~ t - t p oand
v nf&x o r a v -
póvj5, which could liardly be applied to a simple letter. Moreover, the sarne
writer, as both Bury and Treadgold hil to rnention, says inambiguously tliat
Leo deerned himself to be bourid by the oath and therefore did not sub-

10 Ignatii Diuconi Vita Nicepbori. In: Nicephori opuscub hislorica, ed. C IIE B o o ~ Lipsiae
1880, p.l3()-217, p.163, 26 sq.; lbeophanes Conlinuutus, ecl. 1. Rm.Kiri<.Bonnae 1838, p.29,2 sq.
Ihid., cf. Iosephi Gene~siiRegum Lihri Quattztor, ed. ~ . L F S M ~ J ~ . ~ . ~ ~etRJ.- W
' ~ I~; K
~~JR
NNH.~ ~
Rerlin 1978, p.20,4-9.
12 Scr@or Incertus de Leone Amzcnio. In: Leonis Granzmatici Chronographia, ed. 1. DEI<-
KEII. Bonnae 1842, p.335-362; p.340,19-341,3. This eclition is used with corrections of R. BROW-
NING, «Notes on thc Ccriptor Incertus de Leone Armenio." Byzantion 35 (1965), p.389-411.
13 Symeonis Magistri Annales. In: 'Ibeophanes C'ontinuatus..., p.601-760, p.604, 1-2;
Georgius Monachus Interpolat~is,Ibid., p.761-924. p.763,5; Leo Grammalic~ls,p.207,8-10;cf. J.-
M. F i ! ~ u i ~ i < s ?'Thc
' o ~ ~I'raise
, of Tlieodore Graptos by Theophanis of Caesarea." Al3 98 (19801,
p.93-150, p.lOO.
'4 J.U. BURY.A liist(wy of the &astern h'oman Enzpire.from the o f Irene to the Ac-
ce~ssionqf Basil I (AD 802-867),L. 1912, p.56-57; V. GRIJMEL. Les Regeste~sdes actes du Patriar-
cal de Constautinople, Chalcedon 1936, No.389; W. T m ~ ~ ~ o 1TheByzalztine
.u. Revival 780-842.
Stanford 1988, p.199, 11.266.
15 S.I., rcsp. pp.360,21; 340,19 et 349,17; 349,17.
46 DMITRY E. AI'INOGENOV

scribe a solemn pledge of loyalty (nfjtai o-ravpóv) to the decisions of the

Council of 815, which in fact was convened by his own orderl6. There are
no grounds to assume that Scrzptor Incertus invented tliis information. Fin-
thermore, theri are some hints that the letter ancl the oatli had different con-
tents. Theophanes speaks of "assurances of orthodoxy" (TEL n ~ p i~fjsEav-
TOU ópOo8o@as 81.aP@aioí~p~vos), while the only word that can be with any
probability reconstructed from Nicephoros' text indicates that the patriarch's
demands were more radical. 'I'he word is m p a o a k ú ~ i vused
, by Scriptor In-
certus in his both mentions of Leo's oath" and on several other occasions,
al1 corinected with the emperor's ecclesiastical policyl*, This sanie word is
also repeated severa1 times in different sources that quote the speeches of
Orthodox prelates at the famous meeting in the palace on the Christmas
Day of 81419. It is quite possible that Leo was supposed to swear not only
to keep the true faith, but also to refrain from any innovation in the Churcli
affairs, 2nd it is unlikely that such a pledge was included already in his first
letter to Nicephoros.
Proceeding from these considerations I come to the conclusion that Leo
did bring the oath, but did it aJir the coronation. This is actually what the
Continuator of Theophanes says20. Because of the ensuing Iconoclast turmoil
the original meaning of this delay was lost even for tl-ie contexnporaries, let
alone the post-erity,but certain details stucli in memory --some remembered
that the emperor refiised to bring the 02th at some point, whereas others,
that he did bring it, but then brolce. FIence the incompatible versions we
have in our sources. Yet the reason behind the emperor's behaviour is quite
understandable --the message was that the legitimation of the imperial
power dict not depend on the sanction of the Church and that the pledge
of Ortl-iodoxy or the promise not to alter ecclesiastical practices could not
be a prerequisite for coronation of an emperor who has already been pro-

'6 Ihid., 360,20 sq.

'7 S.I., p.341,l ct 360,22.
18 r d K ~ X ... W ~Opto8ívra iinó 1-E TWV ~IITOUTÓXW~ ~ a 1TWV í r a ~ í p w v OFTE Trapaoa
Xcíiopu (3$2,18-20); póvov ~ f i v n í o r t v I J - ~n a p a u a k ú n q ~ c(357,6).
Theosterictos has it (iwice) in rlie speecli of Euthymios of Sarctis (iheostericti Vitu
Nicetue, Acla Sanctoriirn, Aprilis vol.1, p.XX11-XXXII, cap.35, p.XXXa); George the Monk (Gcolo
gii Monuchi chronicon. Ed. C. IIE B o o ~ .Eclitio stereotypa correctior, c~1r.P.WIIITH.Stuttgart
1978, p.779,20), Leo Graminaticus (p.209,8) ancl Symeon Magister (p.608,18) -in tl-ie spccch of
'I'monoi~e Stuclite. Cf. also Vitu Nicephori, p.169,29: Leo denies iliat he S ~ a o a k ú true t ~ and
ancient doctrines.
Lo 11.29,2-7:Ó p i v yhp Nt~q$ópos... iSIjrct ~ f i v&a TOU k p o U o~pPÓXou 71pbj- T ~ V
Odav níu-rtv u v y ~ a ~ á 0 t u ó ~ vSi
. OÚK E$q vUv TOUTO TIOLI~UELV, iiír~pOío8at 66 p í x p t y a v
4 r i j s P a o t k í a s UUTQ ~ X E ~ Wciváppqots
S y í v q r a t , SqXoúnqs ~ i j savaeoX% Ws ~ a aÚroU i
yc 71pocv~oxqpívovr f j T ~ Sa i p í o ~ w cp a v í q i~ ytvtrqs.
 KC2NXI'AN'I'I N O Y n O A I C EITl X O T T O N EXEI (11) 47

claiined. 'This had nothing to do with lconoclasin so far, but Nicephoros

obviously had to realize what a formidable adversary he was going to have
in the coming years.
The yuestion, what exactly was Leo's main reasoii f a re-introducing
Iconoclasm will probably remain without definitive answer forever, hecause
it is impossihle to evaluate precisely the relative importance of subjective
and objective motives. On the other hand, it appears from the oath affair
tl-iat one oí' Leo's primary goals was to reverse the shift of power balance
from the State to the Cliurch and to eliininate the Patriarehate of Constanti-
nople as an independent source of political influence. In any case it is just
that political influerice that made the emperor's task so cornplicated. Leo
certainly commanded a firm siipport in the army and probably among the
popuiace, but if he had acted by force only, the new order would have been
deprived of any legitimacy. Yet it is well ltnown that Leo intencled to founct
a dynasty that would rule for generations, so in the long term he needcd
solid legal foundations for his ecclesiastical policy. Tlierefore the best solu-
tion for the emperor was to create an apparent interna1 conflici about im-
ages within the Churcl-i, then to act as a mediator arid to decide the rnatter
in favour of the Iconoclasts. In this case the restoration of Iconoclasm would
have entailed the decline of the prestige of clergy and the rise of the imper-
ial authority. It can be safely assuined that Leo, perfectly aware of the dis-
cord between Nicephoros and the Studites, reckoned that a certain part of
the Orthodox would by al1 means engage in discussion with Iconoclasts
thus supplying hini with the necessary pretext for legitimate interference.
The difficulties of the emperor's undertaking are well illustrated by the
fact that the commission of clerics who were supposed to find the patristic
evidence against the iinages fiad to be accomodated in the palace. Later the
Orthodox used this to question the emperor's neutrality"', so this was either
a gross miscalculation (which is unlikely, considering Leo's "shrewdness")
or a forced decision. It may well be, that the palace was siiriply the only
safe place for this commission while they were not yet openly supported by
the emperor. In the katter, more probable, case it was one more indication
of the patriarch's power.
Anotlier difficulty was that Leo had at al1 costs to prevent the deposition
of liis aides before the planned discussion about the iniages. Of this we are
niuch better informed, since we know that the meinbers of the Iconoclast
comission had to work secretly22 and that their leaders on different occa-

21 Vita Nicetae p.XXIXe (see below tlie words of Michael of Synacla to Leo at the Christ-
mas meeting of 814); Nicephori Apologelicus de sucris imagnibus., PG 100, 544D-%A; 568C.
22 S.I., p.352,8 sq.
48 DMITRY E. APINOGENOV

sions had either to deny everything and swear allegiance to icons21 or even
to repent before the patriarch 2nd to ask for forgivenesszd. This is just one
more proof that it was interna1 dissense in the Church that the emperor
neecled so badly. The way Leo looked for s~ipportersis vividly described in
the Life of liluthymios of Sardis written by the f~iturePatriarch Methodios.
Since Eutliymios was ousted froni his see in 803 ancl could not recover it
even under Michael Rhangabe, he obviously seemed to the emperor an easy
prey. So Leo invited him to the capital and for three months tried to lure
hini over to liis side by promising the patriarchal throne and other rewards
-admittedly, to no avail25.
Tl-ie only option Nicephoros was left with was to prevent in every pos-
sible way any discussion on the matters of faith, in whieh the Emperor
could play a mediator. At the same time he had to be vesy cautious in order
not to give Leo a pretext to eject him for crimen laesae mujestutis. Tlierefo-
re the patriarch steadfastly refused to talk to the lconoclasts, but not to the
emperor himself. Nicepliorusl attempt to depose or excommunicate the
members of the Iconoclast commission failed, as it seems, just because at
tliis point he coulcl not go too far, but he continued 1-0form a support base
among the clergy and probably the monks. A good example of this is pro.-
vided by the Life of Bishop George of Mitylene. The liero of tliis Life came
to the capital under Michael I to settle a dispute with the local governor.
Meanwhile Leo V took power, and the patriarch asked George to stay
Ixcause he needeci his help against the rescirgent heresyz6.
By Decernber 814 Leo clecided tliat the necessaiy amount of eviclence
had been collected and asked the patriarcli to apply "economy" by remov-
ing low-hanging icons, Sor the populace was scandalized and said tlut bar-
barians vanquisl-i Romans because of the image worship. May be the em-
peros believed, as many modern scholars do, that the "econotny" was one
of the principles of Nicephoros' policy. If so, he overlooked the fact that
?'arasios and Nicephoros applied economy wlien it suited them, and not
whenever tlie emperors wished. This time tlie patriarch replied that there
was no cluestiori of econorny with regard to ancient practices of Aposiles
and f-Ioly Fathers. l'hen Leo invited him to talli to "his peoplel1 (robe
ICCLT'EII~), who had allegedly found in old books some statements that Sor-

2 j ,?~istuIaad Ilheoj>hilum, c.2 1. 111: H. GAUER, Texte Z Z I ~U y ~ ~ ~ n t i n i s c hNilde~streii.

en
Studien und l'extc zur Uyzantinistik 1. Frankf~irla.M. 1994, S.l 10-112 (PG 95,372C-373A).
24 Photii lir,miliae. 1;d. U. 1 , ~ o r r m A s .Tliessalonica 1959, IIom.15, p.140. Izp. a$ TheojAi-
h m , c.20, S.llO.
25 J. GOIJII.I.AKI), "La vie dlEuthyme d e Sardes." 724 10 (19871, p.1-101, p.31-33.
26 1, M. ~ ) 1 ~ 0 ~ J N T O U i . Ehtuplaicb~
S. ~OPTOXÓYLOI, A'' aay101 ~ E W P Y L O L , ~ P X L ~ T ~ ~ K O T T O L
MUI-~X~íqs. ' ABíjva~ 1959, 0.36.
 KQNXI ANTI NOTITOA1 L E111ZKOIION EXCl (11) 49

bade the veneration of icons. Nicephoros sent to the emperor a delegation

of bishops and hegurneni who answered Leo's own questions but flatly
ref~isedto speak with Jolin the Grammarian, Anthony of Syllaiori and other
members of the Iconoclast comrnission. No insistancc or arguments of the
emperor coulcl persuade the Orthodox ecclesiastics (who clearly had very
strict instructions on that matter) to cliange their niind27. So tlie gradual
approach was leacling Leo nowhere.
Tlien tlie emperor, having achieved very little at the first step, proceecl-
ed straight to the second. He rnade his solcliers insult the icon of Christ on
the Chalki Gate and then removed it, ostensibly to prevent dcsccration. This
was a syrnholic gesture of prime importante, since tlie destruction of this
icon by Leo 111 was officially recognized in Byzantiurn as tlie starting point
oí' the first Iconoclasm28. Leo V also permitteci John and Antliony to dissem-
inate their Iconoclast views openly. Now Nicephoros saw that it was his turn
to act. On the Christmas eve of 814 he gathered in the patriarchal palace an
assembly of 2702"isliops and numerous priests and monlis. This was a
very impressive nurnber and 1 believe that the patriarch prepared the meet-
ing well in advance30. The alrcady mentioned account from the Life of
George of Mitylene is a good example of tliis preparation. It is also worth
noting that Josepli of Thessalonica was also present, which was hardly acci-
dental, considering that a land route to this city was not yet open while tlie
sea comrnunications during the winter were ciangerous. The timing chosen
for this majos demonstration of the Orthodox opposition was perfect, since
it was out of question that the emperor woulcl use violence against the liigh-
est clergy during one of the greatest Cliurcli feasts.
Nicephoros, who chairecl the meeting, elnphasized the need for unity
more than anything else31. Tlie contents of the solemn oath tliat al1 the par-
27 '1'11is paragraph is based on S. I., p.352-355.
28 S.I., p.354,l 5-355,6; hp. ad iAeophilum, c.24, S.114.
29 bpistula a$ 'fieophilum, c.22, S.112,Il. 1 rollow W. '1'~ir~nc»i.n (12.210, n.2831, wlio
thinks that two accounts of S.I. (p.354355) deal witli one and the satne event.
30 The text of bpistula ad I%eophilum is quite clear as far as thc number is concerned:
oÚvoSov byíwv n a ~ í p ú wovvaOpoioac ~ b v&p~%@vu o ' itai ~ráv7-wvT&S LC~GLTLK&C CTTOX&C
U p r r t ~ o ~ í v wivu TQ ktyáXq 'Ayíq Co@ía, ~fjsS i írXqOúoc TWV i t p í ~ vK U ~~ o v a x W vT ~ S
pautXi8oc nóXtwc OpoU ouvaOpoiu0ív~wv... V. GIIIIMEI. is thereiore riglit when he speaks about
270 bishops (IGgesles, No 393), but one may wonder wliat ~nakeshim tliink that the number
at the meeting reportecl by Scn$tor Incerlus and 'I'lieoslerictos (No 391) was "peu consitl~rable."
'I'reatigold apparently ignores thc possil)ility that Niceplioros was planning tlie event for a long
time ahead, so Iie believes that 270 l~ishopsis too tnany and accepts this figure "for al1 those
present" (p.418, n284).
31 , X I , p.355,16-20: io~-rrbv oUv, &SeX$oí, i v O ~ o v o i a i u d ~ t e a~ a uuuq&vot
i &SL-
a ~ p í - r w s ,K C L ~ ~4 cüpwnív Ttva it 4pWv &noxwpícrat d r f j s i v a v ~ i a spoípas, ~ a oU i ~4
iuxúcrwutv~ r r k í o v s ydp aU-rWv i u p c v xápt7-t Xptu~oU.
50 IIMITRY E AFINOGENOV

ticipants signed includetl a pledge not to get separated from one another
(I-LT) xwpi(to0at). This was in perfect accortl with the general tactical line
pursued by Nicephoros, which envisaged that no Orthodox churchmari
shoulcl engage in discussions with heretics. It was therefore extremely
important tkat the leaders of the Studite party attended the assembly and
signed the oath. This time the patriarch probably also deposed the only
bishop who liad so far ernbraced the Iconoclasm, Antonios of Syllaion, and
"al1 who liolcl cotnmunion with him,"32 which, if Epistula ud ?beophilum
deserves credit, effectively meant an automatic deposition of al1 clerics who
would join the heretics in the future.
After the meeting everybody went next door to St.Sophia and celebrated
a litany, praying lor the designs of the heretics to be dissipated. When Leo
learnt about it, he expressed his displeasure to the patriarch, to which the
latter replied that they were just asking God to preserve the Church unclis-
turbed ((va T ~ Vi ~ ~ X q a í adoáhcvrov
v d>uXáeg-possibly an allusiori to the
protnise "not to napaoaX~Úci.v")~~, Then the ernperor sutnmoned Nicepho-
rus and liis supporters to the palace. The meeting in the palace was the cul-
rniriatiori of the drama, and the Ortodox already haci a well-prepared script
to follow. Our tnain and best source, the author of the Lile of Nicetas of
Medikion, monk Tlieosterictos, leaves no place for doubt about tliat. I-Iere is
what he says: [after a conversation with the patriarch tete-&tete Leo invites
the otliersl, "unaware of wl-iat they have said among themselves separately"
(dyvo611 ... rd pera@ aÚrWv K ~ T i%av
' d p q ~ ~ & v aThen
) 3 ~ . once more: " i d
in accordance with the plan they liad discussed arnorig themselves separ-
ately, tlie patriarch said ..." (Ws d x t v nphs rdv a~ondvrou < r e d TGV>
p.tratU aÚrWv i6iu i>rl0ívrwv,F<bq O ncr~-pi.ápxqc)35. Ancl again: "the rnost
holy Peter said this no1 without purpose" (OÚK &VEU m o n d E ' ~ P T ) K € V TOUTO
O Cly~óraros rIírpos)36. 'I'he Orthodox churchrnen had no illusions: tliey
"knew exactly" the emperor's aims and did not hope to convince him with
their argutnents:i7. This rneans that the entire dialog was nothing but a show

3"pistulu ad ibeophilum, c.22, S.112,30. Unlilte GR~JMEL, X¿gestsfes, No.393 and 7'111:~l)-
c;o~,u,p.418, n.284, 1 clo not find it impossible that Antonios was cleposed aftet- he went puhlic
witli his Lconoclast views, tliereby violating Iiis writtcri oatll. Tlie gatkring itself was a much
greater "cliallcnge" tlian ~liisdeposition, wliicli is also tncntioned in Sy~zodlconVetus. Ecl. J .
Urir;i;u and J. PARKER. Washington 1979, No 155,4-5, 11.130.
53 'S.I.,p.354,10 sq.
3"Vuli Nicetue, c.32, pXX1Xc.
35 Ibid., c.33.
% Ibid., c.34, p.XXIX..
57 Ibid., p.XX1XD-1: PTL Oi &KPLP& ~ I T L U T ~ ~ L ~ V WrUv
V p a a ~ h í ú ...
U K ~ I T ~TU ~ Z ~ s ~ a Ws
i
oú ~ ~ ~ a ~ t L o 0 í p Kt ~~ aVnantxv
L, TI$ ypa+$v e i s paprvpíav a ú ~ @+ í p o ~ c v .
of Nicephoros' tactical brilliance. Scnptor Incertus reports that the patriarch
at first offered Leo to depose him but to leave the faith alone. If this infor-
rnation is correct, the emperor's answer sounds vely clever too: Wlio is it
who clases to depose os oust the patriarch, our father, os ciisturb (nupaou-
X~goa~ the
) Church? We have conducted a small investigation because there
are talks, but my beliefs are the same as those of the Church." Leo's plans
apparently went much iarther than the removal of an influential patriarch
-he wanteci institutional changes. The speeches of the Orthodox prelates
fonn a perfect climax, so it maltes sense to reproduce the most characteris-
tic passages from the Life of Nicetas in Paul Alexander's translationA8. This
is by far the best source of al1 available, since 'Theosteriktos' hero did not
participate in this meeting, so the biographer had no need to ascribe to him
other people's words (as other hagiographers do).
Aimiliarios of Cyzicus: "If... this is a Chiircli incluiry, oh Emperor, let it
be inyuired into in the Church as is the custom, for from old and froin the
beginning Cliurch inquiries are incpired into in the Cliurcli ancl not in the
Imperial Palace."
Michael of Synnada: "If you are a mediator, why do you not do the job
of a mediator? II süy this because the one side you shelter in the Palace and
even assemble and encourage, even giving them perrnission to teach their
impious doctrines; wliereas the other side does not dare to utter a sound
even on the streets and crouches down everywhere before your decrees.
This is characteristic not of mediation, but of clictation (~upavví.~)."
7rheopliylactos of Nicomedia: ". . .There are innumerable pieces of evidence
in support of this, and we are not at a loss as you suspect, but there are no
ears to listen, and we soulcl not be vesy useful if we stated our case, for we
are waging war against the governinent (T@ K ~ ~ T E~Lv T L I T o X E ~ O Ú ~ E ~ ~ ) , ~
Now the Orthodox do not wait for Leo's answers any more and Peter of
Nicaea comes fortli immediately after Theophylactos:
"How can you ask us to talk to them? Behold you are fighting on their
side. Donlt you know tliat even if you introduced the so-called ~ a n i c h a e -
ans and protected them, they will overpower us because they are support-
ed by you?."
This already rnight be a distant allusion to St,John of Damascris."i.
IJp to this point it were acting metropolitans, the highest 'riierarchs of the
Chiirch who did the speaking. Now Nicephoros introduces persons noto-

38 AI.EXANDEI~, p.130-132.
39 M a v ~ x a i movvíypa$av -rb ~ a r dOup?v ~ U a y y í h o vypú4a-r~ ~ a 1. i i ~r b~i it a~~ d
A í o v ~ a ~UayyíX~ov.Contra imaginum calumnialora orutio II,l(i, 62sq. Uie Schnien des
Johanncs von Damaskos. Hesorgt von B. Ko'r-r'i;.~.Berlin-N.Y. 1975, Bcl.111, S.113.
52 BMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

rious for their conflicts with tlie government. Theosterictos pertinently

remarks: "Thereupon Euthymios, Hishop of Sardis, also replied to the Em-
peror in a holder way (rrappqotaaápvos rrX~t6vws)."Eutliymios asks rhetor-
ically: "And who is the arrogant (aU8á6qs) who would dare to disturb (napa-
oaX~Uaat!). .. the tradition so many years old...?" and answers: "So whoever
will dare to disturb [again rrapaoaX&~a~!los alter anything of it [Nicaenum
111, be he anathema". He also yuotes Ga1.1,8-9, which may also be an allu-
sion to St.John, who usecl it in the following way: "And if an angel os an
emperor should preach to you against what you have received, close your
ears. For 1 do not dare say as Saint Paul did: be he anathenm"40
This, however, was not yet enough to provoke the emperor, who "so
far had pretended to be forbearing." So Nicephoros deploys his mightiest
weapon -Theodore the Studite, whom Theosterictos pointedly describes as
"the zealous teacher of the Church." This time St,Jolin is quoted directly:
". . .the Apostle spoke thus: "and he gave some apostles, some prophets, and
some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the
saintc (Eph.4,l + 1 Cor.12,28)", but he dicl not speak of emper0rs."4~Ale-
xancler has pointed out the explosive nature of St.Johnlswritings on iinages,
created outside the Empire, for tlie Byzantine practice*z, so it is easy to
understand why Theodore's utterance was too much for Leo to tolerate. But
two other sources report that the Studite higumenos did not stop there. He
added: "And if you wish to be as her [se. of the Churchl child, nothing liam-
pers. Just follow your spiritual father in everything."a With tlriese words he
pointed with his finger at the Patriarcli Nicephoros. If Leo was indeed count-
ing on tlie discord between tlie patriarch and thr Studites, this was a
serious blow, especially as Theodore's arrogante could not be iinputed to
Nicephoros, because everyone knew that 'I'heodore usecl to say only what
he deemed right. So the only thing the emperor coulct do in this situation
was to burst out with rage and chase the stubborn ecclesiactics away, the-
reby "acknowledging his complete defeat."" It Itoes not seem correct to say,
as Alexander does, that "the discussion certainly did not produce ariy re-

" IIlid., II,6 (=111,3), 18-20, S.73:Kav &yydos, K&V Bao~Xd~s tUayytXícq~at i@s nap'
8 ITCL~EXÚPCTE, KXE~CTCITE ~ K O & S i)~*Wv.'OKVWydp cimTv, W s 2411 b aylos TiaíAo~,ávú-
O F ~ U~ U T W .
41 Ibid., 11,12,2-7(S.102).
AAXANDER, p.132.
43 1 prefer tlie versiosi of tlic Life oí' 'l'lieodore by Micliael (PC 99, 284B) 10 tlrat oí' tlie
Lifc of Eiilliisnius of Sardis I>yMetrophancs (A. I->AI~ADAI<IS,"'I'l~eUnpublished Lií'e of Euthyinius
of Sardis: Uoclleianus Laudianus Craecus 69." T~uditio26 (19721, p.63-89, 13.781, cjuotecl by Ale-
xander.
sults". For Leo, it certainly did, and quite negative ones al that, for now he
was left with the sole option -to introduce Tconoclasm by force, forfeiting
the hope for a plausible legitimation.
The subsequent actions of the emperor are described in detail by Ale-
xander and recently Treadgold45, so 1 will emphasize only the most import-
ant points in Nic&horosl tactics. When Leo demanded his resignation, the
patriarch answered with a letter that said: "011Ernperor, 1 shall not descencl
in this casual way, for 1 gave you no reason to depose me. If, however, 1
am forced (~upavvoUpai)because of my orthodoxy, os piety, either by your-
self os by one of your imperial officers - send hiin and 1 shall descend."46 It
almost looks lilte Nicephoros invited Leo to use force, which actually made
a good sense, because an uncanonical deposition of the legitimate patriarch
would put his successor and consequently the entire Iconoclast hierarchy in
a vesy awkward position.
Shortly thereafter the patriarch Sell ill. This iliness appears to have been
either a piece of good luck or a very skillful tactical move -it gave Nice-
phoros an excuse to refuse any contacts with the Iconoclasts47 who now
had an dficial imperial support and at the same time instilled in Leo a vane
hope, that the natural demise of the patriarch would solve most of bis pro-
blems48. Meanwhile the emperor tried to woo to his side as much clerics as
was possible. Although the assertion of Scriptor Incerlus that alniost al1 who
earlier promised to die for the truth, changed their minds", is rather a rhe-
torical exaggeration (there were quite a few bishops-confessors, including
many metropolitans), he had a considerable success. It must be kept in
mind, however, that the price for, that success had already been paid, for
the emperor had to give up his "neiitralitytland thus the possibility to act as
mediator. This was still the weak point of the Patriarchate -many Byzanti-
ne clerics believed that they could turn against their patriarch inasmuch as
the imperial sanctiori granted them irnpunity. As will be seen further in this
paper, this time they proved wrong (albeit with a delay of 28 years).
The so called aÚvoGoc ivGqpoOaa50 that was gathered by Leo specific-
ally to depose Nicephorus according to the customasy procecture sum-
moned the allegedly ill patriarch three t i m e P . Ignatios the Deacon quotes
only two answers of the patriarch (p.191-195). Perhaps the first time he gave

45 ALKXANDER, p.133-135; TREA»GOI.D, p.211-213.

46 Vita Nicetae, p.XXXb, c.36.
47 7Lu Nicephwt, p. 191,6.
S.I., p.357,19.
*9 Ibid., p.357,8 sq.
50 Vita Nicephori, p.l92,25.
51 Ibid., 193,4: 46q yap r p í ~ q vT ~ V T ~ í V~ p~ o ~ p o dnpm o t ~ ~ t 0T Ta ~ O C a h ó v
54 DMITRY E AFINOGENOV

no answer at all. At first Nicephoros offered his conditions. These conditions

were absolutely uriacceptable not because they included the release of
prisoners and freedom of speech for the iconodules, but because even if
they were fulfilled, the patriarch agreed to speak only with those, whose
episcopal rank he recognized as valid52. 7'he third time patrikios Thomas,
an imperial official temporarily in charge of the Patriarchate, forced Nice-
phoros to receive the lconoclast delegation. The fact that Leo's synod did
not want to siinply condemn the patriarch in absentia suggests that tliey felt
quite uneasy as far as their legitiinacy was concerned. Wllen the hishops
appeared before Nicephoros he declared thenl al1 deposed for violating the
canon that forbade to convene ecclesiastical asseinblies without tlie ap-
proval of the ruling bishop53. Remarkably, Nicephoros finished his career as
patriarch applying the same canon with which Tarasios began to raise the
prestige of the see of Constantinople54.
This move deprived the heretics of any canonical support they coulcl
hope for, since at that time Nicephoros undisputahly was the ruling bishop
of Constantinople. The only means they could now use was direct govern-
ment coercion, as the patriarcli liad envisaged from tkie veiy beginning. In
the long-terin perspective it rnade the konoclast chances to win very scanty,
because Nicepl.ioros did not yield a single foot of the institutional grourid
acquired by Tarasios or himself. Now, having done everytlling possible, he
could step down in tlie way that would not allow his opponents to talk
about a voluntary resignation. 1-Iis last letter to the emperor was formulated
with admirable sltill and precision:
...Until now we have been striiggling... for tlie truth ancl piety. And in
our opinion we have not defaultcd on any of oiir dufies. ...Uut since we
1i;lve suffered because of that al1 ltind of affliction, distress and ill-treat-
riient... and finally cariic; some people who consicler themselves bishops
and dicl to us even greater disgrace tlian tlie preceding one [follows a
lerigthy ddescription of niob fiiry.1 ...Ancl after al1 tliese evils we heard that the
enemies of tlie trutli are plotting an amhiisli against us, wanting to atlack
11s2nd perpetrate either a murder os a violent and clcaclly discharge. So lest
soinetliing iriacceptable happens and tlie sin is irnputed to your govern-

52 Ihid., 191,29: tlic ptriarcli woulcl not valk to TWV /*qSiv T ~ Sk p ~ o ~ ú v qinta)cpo-
s
/*&VWV Xti+avo~- ¡.e. probai~lyto tliose affectecl by thc deposition and anathematization of An-
iiiony of Syllaion. 111 S.I.,p.357,14, Niceplioros calls tlie cleserters intóp~ovc < ~ a i >o~avponá-
TaS, whicll could irnply a cleposition o11 tlie grouncl of pcjuiy.
53 Vitu Nicephori, p.195,18 sq.
í 4 ].D. MANSI, Sacr.orz~mC'orzciliorum nouu et anaplissima colleclio. Vol.XI1, Florentiae
1766, ~ o i . 9 9 0U. Sce the first part of tliis paper, 12.48. For tlie canons in questioti see Alexan-
der's refcrences: p.134, n.6.
 ETII CKOTION EXEI (11)
I<RNXIAN'TINOTI~OI\IL 55

inent (for it is inipossible to invent a graves persecution agairisi us), it is

a1)soluiely necessary tliat we, against our will and involuntarily, persccutcd
by ihe wrongdoers, step down frorn our tlirone ...55

It is easy to unclerstarid why Ignatios called this docuinent "tlie last

blowfl.5"
Before going to tlle exilc, anywhere Ixtween late Deceinber, 814 antl
hdarch 13, 815, Patriarch Nicephoros publislied an appeal to tlie Churcli
Itnown as ilpologclicus Minor57. Shere lie laid out tl-ie pririciples of his
policy with regard to the Icorioclasts. Cliapter 3 of this worli puts al1 tlie
I~larnefor the heresy on eiiiperors 2nd is worded so as to provolie inam-
biguous allusions: [Constantine VI "following his irnpious will, or rather dis-.
playing a tyrannical arrogance, with the help of unholy priests he sliame--
lessly gathered, ari-anged, insofar it was up to liini, their 1i.e. of' the icoiis]
ovcrthrow." The main point of tlie docuinent is that no discussion with Ico-
noclasts is possible (841.B, 845A,H) with the exception of the erriperor liirn-
self (8493). It is clearly statcd that "whoever clisciisses with them the dog-
inas of the Churcl-i, draws the same anathemas upon liimself" (8418). 'rlie
heretics are deposed for perjury, becausc they brolte the oalh they brouglit
at tl-ieir ordination (8401)-841E) and foi- gathering illicit conventicles (841C).
Foreseeing the persecution the patriarch declares to al1 the Orthodox: "even
if but very few rei~iainin the Orthodoxy and piety, it is thein who are the
Churcli"(849D).As has been dernonstraled, this program was carried out by
Nicephoros to the last point, although it remained 28 years to wait for the
results.
'Theodore of Studiou, whatever his pcrsonal views might have been,
also followed the tactical line drawn by the patriarcl-i. At this point he
56 DMi'TRY E.AFINOGENOV

understood that the emperor would use the slightest discord between the
Studites and Nicephoros to a great detriment to the Church as a whole. There-
fore when he was summoned to the Iconoclast Council of 815, he replied
with a letter in which he refused to appear saying that the canons forbade
to discuss matters of ecclesiastical discipline, let alone of dogmatics, without
the approval of one's bishop, and that he recognized Nicephoros as his legit-
imate superior58. Since Theodore in the past had been doing and writing
just the opposite, it may be assiimed that this time he was wise enough to
accept the way of behaviour toward Iconoclasts offered by the patriarch.
Whether he actually carne to believe that a strong patriarchal authority witliin
the Church was absolutely indispensable to withstand the encroachments of
tlie State, is another question. The important thing is that lie had to say it
publicly on many occasions59, which later enabled the protagonists of the
"patriarchal party" to claim his authority in support of their position60.
When Leo V was slain by conspirators on the Christnias of 820 and
Michael 11 ascended tlie throne, the persecution ended and the Orthodox
received a relative freedom. They immediately used it to re-activate the
resisvance movement. In 821 severa1 metropolitans, bishops and hegumeni,
including Theodore Studite, gathered at the place of Nicephoros' exile and
unanimously decided to approach the eniperor61. The delegation was grant-
ed an audience and tried to persuade Michael to abandon Iconoclasm and
to reinstate Nicephoros (earlier Theodore sent a letter to the emperor with
similar suggestion~~~). The same delegation possil~lydelivered Nicephoros'
letter mentioned by Ignatios63. It deserves attention that the Orthodox synod
dicl not approve of tlie deposed patriarch's personal visit to the emperor.
'I'he reason might have been, that the ernperor was to invite Niceplioros
back himself, whereupon tlie patriarch could return under the condition
that the Orthodoxy be restored and the apostates punished. Anyhow, after
815 Nicephoros never did anytliing that could be interpreted as concession.

58 Tbeodori epistulae, 1$.71,3 sq.: [fi ~aO'$tis t Ú ~ í k t a 1OÚK i-róApqucv TL TWV

vtvoptnpívwv n p á ~ ~ o v unapaytiduOat
a Ws bnb TT)V kpdv xtipa NLK~+ÓPOU TOU ~ ~ L W T ~ T O V
na~ptápxovn v t ú p a ~ tO ~ í y~~Xoúcra.
59 See AI.MAN~>EI~, p.150-154.
60 U ~ ~ m o r r zJ.,
e s "Le patriarclie Méttiode conlre les iconoclastes et les Stouditcs." R&, 45
(19871, p.15-57; ~.37,116-120; p.55,4-6.
6i Vitu Theodori, 317AH; Vita Nicolui Studitae, PG 105, 892A; Tbeodori Epislulae,
Ep.423,3 sq.
G2 Thcodori Epistuluc, Ep.418,40sq. wliere lic says, tliat it is time to bc re-uniietl with
the four other patriaretiates. In a letter to I.eo tlie Sakellarios (i:p.478,80sq.) Theodore explains
that the reinstaternent of Nicephoros is a necessary prcrequisiie for tliat.
Vita Nicepho?+,11.209, 12-24,
 KC1NCTANTI NOTIIOAI C EIII XKOIION EXEl (11) 57

This was not a blind intransigence, as 1. SevFenko thinks64. S o accept the

throne unconditionally os on Michael's conditions effectively itnplied at least
a partial recognition of the institutional change that Leo was t~yingto bring
about. Moreover, now the patriarch had one more concern -the pun-
ishment of those who apostatized in 815. It was about that time that Nice-
phoros wrote his Twelve Chapters. There he cleclared openly for the first
time that the heretical clerics would not get back their ranlts under any cir-
cumstances, even if they repent. 65 He also took case of confirining this deci-
sion by a representative Ortkiodox synod66. According to ,$evFenko, "the aut-
hor's self-assured tone and the intransigence of the proposed punitive
measures indicate that he felt victory within bis grasp."67 1 am more inclined
to believe that Nicephoros was betting on tlie discontinuity of the Byzanti-
ne imperial policy, so the assasination of Leo and the immediate change of
the official line after the ascension of Michael proved his bet to be entirely
justified. In fact, from this point of view the victory had been already achiev-
ed under Leo, so the objective was to presesve the gains for the right
monient and not to squander them by premature cotnpromises. This
momerit did not come during Nicephoros' lifetime (he died in 828), but his
patience and wisdorn secured for the Byzantine church and the Patriarcha-
te of Constantinople the triumph of 843. This is in my opinion the correct
interprelation of the events of 821.
There was a certain ambivalence in Michael's actions. Ignatios says that
he offered Nicephoros the throne of Constantinople (which at that point
was vacant after the death of Theodotos Cassiteras) on the condition that
the probletn of icon worship would not be raised at all, which Nicephoros,
of course, found inacceptable68. The sources almost unanimously report that
the emperor wanted to avoid os suppress any discussion on images while
keeping the church in the satne status a5 before him@. However, it seems
that the aims of Michael's ecclesiastical policy remained pretty much the

"SEVCENKO I., "Tlie Anti-Iconoclast Poem in the I>antocrator Psaltcr." Cahiers Archéolo-
giqzm XV (1965), p.39-60, p.55 and n.40. It is always very strange to see that such terrns as
"intrasigence", "extrernisni" or "rigorisrn" are einployed to characterize people lilce Nicephoros
or Theodoros who amply demonstrated an ability to cliange their standpoint tlepending on the
circumstances. May be it is just the best way to spare oneself the effort of looking for Lhe real
ainis and motives behind their actions.
65 Nicephori Capitula duodecim aduersus Iconomachos. In: A. MAI. Spicilegium Ro-
manum. Romae 1844, Vol. X,II, p.153-156.
66 7beodori Epi~tzbhe,Bp.545, 16-20.
67 SEVEENKO, ibid.
68 Vita Nicephori, p.209,29-210,12.
69 Tbeophane.~Continuatus, p.47,20sq.; Symeon Magister, p.620,16-20 (=Leo Gram-
maticus, p.211,13-17); Georgius Monachus, p.792-793(=Vita Nicephori, 1oc.cit.).
58 DM~L'RYE. APINOGENOV

same as Leo's, though he pursued them with different means. 'l'he emperor
continued to propose the Orthoclox a discussion with the hereties70 with
secular officials as mediators. Michael was well aware of Leo's experience,
so he clicl not even try to address Nicephoros, biit concentrated entirely on
the Studites. Tl-ie first letter of Theodoros of Studiou tl-iat mentions ~ h i spro-
position is dated 821 (Ep.429) while the last one 826 (Ep.5321, tlie year
when Theodore dietl, which nieans that it was not a casual niove, but a con-
sistent policy. Prom this point of view, Michael's lenierice toward the Or-
thodox opposition might be regarded as a proof that Leo's persecution had
failed ancl that the Iconoclast governmerit was desperate to find a solution
that would restore status quo without giving tlie Churcl-i an outright victory
over the State. Anyhow, Michael did not inanage to acl-iieve anything more
that his predecessor, wl-iile the Orthodox patiently waited for their time to
come.

This happened in 842 when emperor Theophilos died and Iiis wife Sheo-
dora becarne the sole ruler with her two-year-old son Micliael 111 as a titu--
lar emperor. After atmut a year of Iiesitation stie allowed a synocl of Ortl-io-
dox clerics and monks to convene in the residente of her "Prime Minister"
'I'heolctistos, in the palace TOU K ~ V L K X E ~ O
1U , not now dwell on the
will
nature and composition of tliis synodn. Its purpose was lirnited - to re-esta-
blish Nicaenum 11 as tlie official creed and to elect a new patriarcl-i, Metho-
dios, who was a closr: associate and former arclideacon7"of Nicephoros.
Although the Iconoclast I'atriarch John tlie Grarnniariari was prepared to
offer a resistente, he found no support and was eventually ejected. N o one
rallied arouncl Iiirn, obviously I~ecausetherc were veiy few convincr:d
iconoclasts, while for tlie others Johri lacked legitiniacy. Niceplioros' policy
began to yield results.
Now, did thc choice of Methodios really so inuch depencl on Ilie
govermnent, as is sometimes maintained"? Theoretically speaking, it (loes
not look probable. Metodios was persecuteti by both Michaeí 11 and 'I'heo-

70 Sce, for instailce, 7heodw-i l$~i.stulae,Ep.429,30-34 and Ep.532,10-31;ibeodoriStmdi-

tac Parva Cuteche.sis. Ed. E. Auviuu. 11.189L,Ca1.327.
"Le Synodikon d e l'<>rtlmcloxie, lcxle et cotnnientaire." TM 2 (19671,
71 Sce J. Goiiii.r.~i~i~,
p.1-316, p.125-127.
72 According io Acta Giaeca SS. Davidis, Sji~neo~zis e/ Geo-ii. AU 18 (18991, p.237,6.
7.5 S'IZ»~~J~Z, 13.126;1'. K ~ i ~ i . i ~ - I l ~ ~"Gregory
GOIJII.I.ARI>, ~ i ~ i i i i , o f Syracuse, Ignatios aiid
I>liotios." In: Iconoclasnz. l'apeis givcn at the Ninth Spffng S~irnposiu~?z qf'l3yzuntine Studies.
Uirrningham 1977, p. 141.145, p.14 L .
 KQNZ1 A N 1 INOY IIOAI Z tIIl ZKOllON LXLl (11) 59

philos and could never be forced to make any concessions, so it would

have been strange to expect that he would do wbat he was told by tlie 1%-
ace. Einperor Theopliilos was so afraid of liis influerice ainong the highest
officials, that he inade Methodios acconipany him in military expedition,
because, according to the Continuator of 'l'heophanes, "al1 diosen and god-
loving citizens seeined to pay great honour arid respect to the man."'"n
fact, Theoktistos and Theodora clisplayed their preferentes only four years
later, when they picked Ignatios as Methodiosl successor. In that case the
role of the government was beyond any doubt, and tlie appointee turned
out to belong to the opposite group witliin the Church. In fact, there is very
little evidence that the I-'alace infl~iencedtlie decision of tlie synod ancl none
at al1 that Methodios was elected on any conditions except the ai~solution
of Emperor Tlieophilos. It seems tliat he was sirnply tlie most distinguished
and politically influential leader of tlie Ortliodox opposition as well as a
symbol of continuity, in his capacity as Nicephorosl archtleacon.
even tliis sole condition that 'l'lieodora was able to put up, namely that
dumnatio memoriae of here husband would be officially disclaimed, coulcl
be implemented only with considerable effort. illiree sources name three
different associates of Metliodios, al1 venerable confessors, who protested
against this action in this way or another75. J.Gouillard is only partly right
when he writes:"Non qulelle prétendit soustraire Théophile 2 11anath6me,
cornnie cela s'écrit généralement. Les I->eresde 787 n'ont pas condanmé les
empereurs isaiiriens, et le VI^ concile rija pas anathématisé les empereiirs
monothélites. Le ciéfunt ne risquiait que l'omission de son nom dans les
diptyques, silence fort inopporturi pour le créciit du petit et iimique héritier
de la dynastie amorienne.YG First, events of 787 cannot be automatically
extrapolated to 843, as I tried to demonstrate in the paper dealing with the
Great Purge77, and second, at least one source directly mentions an anathe-
ma78. Be it as it tnay, the important thing is that the very idea of anathem-
atizing an emperor dicl not seem absurd to tlie Hyzantine mind any more,

7'' Theophanes Continuatus, p.116, 18-19. Thc same way Michael 11 recalled Theodore
of Stirdiou to Consvantinopel not becausr he favoirred him, hut o ~ i tof fear tliai he would join
Thomas h e Slav. See Vita Theodo??,320A.
75 Thcophanes Grapios: ibeqohanes Conntiualus, p.161 et a , ; Symeon of 1,eshos: Acta
Ilavidis..., p.244-245; liilarion 01' T)almíitou: .Sabae Vita Ilila?ionis, Val.gr. 984 - sec 'S. MATANI.-
SEVA. "1;a Vie cllHilarion, liigouiriesie de Ualmatos, par Sabas (BIIG 2177)." Rivisla dei Studi
Bizantini e Neoellenici, N.S. 30 (1993), p. 17-29, p.22.
' ~ O I J I I . I . A R D , Syrzodikon, p.125.
77 U. APINOGENOV, 'The Great Purge of 843: a Re-Examination." In: AEI MQN. Byzanli-
ne Studies presented to Lennart i<ydénon I-ls Sixty-FiPh Ijillthday. Studia Byzantina lpsalien-
sia 6. Uppsala 1996 (iti print).
78 Acta Davidis ..., p.224,23: á v a % c ~ a r t q t @ itaOvn.opaX~iv.
60 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

and the accents of Methodios' propaganda that accompanied the restoration

of image worship must have played here a major role.
Here are some interesting pieces of this propaganda. In the hornily on
the holy icons delivered by Met.hodios as patriarch we find the following
passage:
And if an angd or an emperor sliould preach to you against what you
have received, close your ears E'or I do not dare say as saint Paul did: be
he anathema79.

This is the instantly recognizable quotation frotn St.John of Daniascus to

which Euthymios of Sardis made an allusion at the Christims debate of 814!
And in the prologue oí' the so called "Decree of the Synod held under
Michael and His Mother" it stands:
Our Lord Jesus Christ ... upon becornirig the head of tlie Cliurch,
appointed (EOuo) in her first, apostles, second, prophets, third, teacliers,
for the perfecting of the saints80.

As we have already seen, this particular combination of Eph.4,l and 1

Cor.12,28 was associated with thc passage from John that Theodore Studite
quoted at the same meeting81! So what was percejvecl as something daring
and perhaps subversive 30 years before became now a kind of official ideo-

' J k patriarch also took care of expressing his and his "party's" view of
Iconoclasm as an illegitirnate encroacliment of the State upon the ecclesiast-
ical domain in the solemn rite of the Feast of Orthodoxy. It is well known
that according to Constantine Ikqhyrogenitus the ancient rite of this feast
envisaged that the einperor did not enter the altar, as was otherwise custom-
ary, attended the entire liturgy in the so called "metatorion" and received
communion also outside the altara. Tlie p~iblisher2nd cornmentator of this
text, A.Vogt, inteiprets this as a symbolical gesture of penitence of the State
for the Iconoclast wrongdoings83. Another explanation, which Gouillard

79 Iuris e ~ ~ l e ~ ~ i a ~ l i c i g i ~ ~historia
J.-13, PITI~A, z e c o r uetmmonumenta. Roma 1868, 11, p.360.
80 GOIJILLARU, Synodicon, p.293,2-12.
Go~tillarddenionstrates that tlie text is a later compilation (p.161-1631, hut cloes not
indicate any sources of the "préambule théologique banal" except the Synodical Letter of Iias-
tern patriarchs to Etnperor 'i'lieophilos, where the same quotation introduces a lengthy elaho-
ration on the duties appropriate for secular rulers on the one liand and for priests on tlie other:
Epistula Synodica. In: G A L J ETexte..,
~ ~ , S.12,27f. In any case the very "banality" of this quotation
in sucli context is quite retnarkable and coulcl not appear in the official use belore Methodios.
82 CONSTANTIN POIWHYIIOGÉNE.I.E. LL' Liure des C&éinonie.~,1, 37 (28). Éci. A. Voc.r. P. 1935,
p.147, 2-5.
Il~id.,Coinmentaiw 1, p. 162-164.
finds "plus séduisant,"84 was proposed by A.Grat->ar", who maintains that
tlie ancient rite exactly reproduced the events of 843, when the Empress as
a woman could not enter the altar. Grabar also thinlts that it was for the
same reason that Nicaenum 11 was chaired by the I-'atriarcliTarasios and not
by tlie emperors as was the custom lxfore that. 1 had to deal with the lat-
ter case in the first part of rny p a p a (p.48). The s a n e arguments are per-
fectly applicable here, since in botli cases there was a male emperor who
coulct perform ceremonial functions regardless of the age. In fact, the Ortho-
tlox Church does not know any age liinitations with regard to communion
os entering the altar. In tlie rite of "lntroduction into Cliurch" (Slavonic and
Iiussian: vocerkovler~ie)whicli in the current practice immediately follows
the baptism, male infants are carried into the altar by the priest. Moreover,
for the ninth century we have a precedeni when thc eleven- or twelve-year-
old Symbatios-Constantine, son of Leo V, presicled over the Iconoclast
Council of 81 5, and this fact did not provoke any critica1 comment from the
Iconodule historian who reported it8" Therefore while Theodora could not
enter the altar, the three-year-old Micliael 111 perfectly could87, and Grabar's
theory has no foundation. So Vogt is probably right and we can regard the
ceremony in question as one more propagandistic measure cfestined to raise
the status of Churcli at the expense of the imperial power.
As has been already mentioned, one of the majos concerns of Nice-
phoros and his followers after 815 was not to let the apostate clergy Lo avoid
due punishment. As 1 am dealing with this matter in another paper88, it will
be sufficient to briefly summarize the conclusions. They are as follows: Me-
thodios organized the Great I1urge of the IIyzantine clergy in the course of
which al1 Iconoclast bishops, priests and deacons, numbering more than 20
thousand inen, were permanently and irreversibly deposed regardless of
their original ordination os conversion to Orthodoxy. The contemporaries
perfectly understood that in doing so tlie patriarch was carrying out the
measure which his Ortliodox predecessor Nicephoros declared but could
not put into practice. As the canonical ground for the deposition of clerics
of legitimate ordination Methodios used perjury: these people were accused
of violating the profession of faith they signed at their appointment.

H"GOI.I.ARD, Synodikon, p.130, n.103.

85 A. GRAUAILL1ic»noclasmebyzantin. Paris 1<)84~,
p.216-217.
8." í.,p..S60,16sq.
87 Cf. tlie wording in Namtio historica inJTslum reslilutionis imaginum. Ed. F. COMRE-
FE. Ribliothecae I'atrum Graeco-Latinac Auctarium Novum. P. 1648, V01.11, co1.715-743, col.
7 3 8 2 [to St. Sophial rrapayivf~al 6i ~ a ahbs
i O p a n ~ k b sMixailh, p c ~ d~ f j shyías ~ a i
ÓpBoSó~ouahoU pq~pós,~ a ni á q s T ~ Souy~hfi~ou
...
?&eGreat Pnrge.
AFINOGINOV,
 Just as vigorously as tlie patriarch vinclicated Nicephoros against the
Iconoclcists, he attempted to finally turn the "Moechian affair" into a com-
plete victory for the Patriarchate. This, however, proved to be a more com-
plicated vask. Unforturiately the sources provide very scanty information on
this episode, probably due to its emt~arrassingnature. However, what is
available is quite illuminating as Par as the aitns of Methodios ecclesiastical
policy are concerned.
'I'he first question to be answered is, as always, about the active side of
tlie conflict, i.e. about ihe initiative. Who was on the offensive and who on
tlie defensive? Both von Dobschütz and Gnimelsg, tlie cliscrepancy between
their theories notwithstanding, Ixlieve that tlie strifc: was started by tlie Stu-
clites, who protested against "uncanonical ordinations" by the patriarcli who
opinion was allegedly appointing unworthy men to some of the numerous
vacant sees. This is the version offered by the sole source, the Life of Me-
thodios90. It seetns, however, sotnewhat liasty in this particular case to take
everything this text says at face value, before a satisfactory answer can be
found to the question, wliy in the surviving polemical works of the patriarch
liirnself that pertaint to the Studite schism there is no inention of ordinations
or of objections against them. S~ichobjections per se would have been pretty
logical and natural, especially if we assime with Grumel and others that the
Studites watited episcopal sees for themselves and tl-ieir partisans. Yet there
is no apparent reason why Methodios sliould keep silence on tliis problem
in his invectives against Naucratios and Athanasios, or why later canonists
(who have preserved tliese invectives) should omit the correspontling pas--
sages. C>n the other hand, the infortnatiori of the Life inspires d o ~ hl~ecause
t
it does not mention one of uridisputably most irnportmt issues in this con-
flict, namely tlie worlcs of Theodore of Studiou directed against Tarasios and
Niceplioros.
Now, this omission can he explained fairly easily. 'l'he Life of Metliodios
we possess now either comes from a Studite tnilieu os has undergone a ten-
dentious editing. So the same thing could happen liere as in the case of'
Sabas' reinodeling of Peter's Life of Ioannikiosg'. Ioannilcios supported Me-
tlioclios against the Studites; Sabas wanted to keep the support hut leave out
the Studites, so he macle Ioanniltios help the patriarch against sotne pus-
ported opponcnts of tlie Great Purge. Now, the authority of I'atriarclis
Niccphoros and Tarasios only grew with the time (Ignatios, for instance,

" S.46-47; Giru~iir.V . Ikposé s~urle schisrtze studite. I<égeste.s, No.436 (V.11
V. Uo~~sciiii.i~z,
2-3, p.Sl),
Vitu Methodii, 1257C-U.
9' SfXA~;INOGENOV, ?;(leG?,Wt ~ ' ~ 1 ' g e .
 KQNZ I A N II N O Y I I O A I Z LITIZKOKON CXCI (11) 63

could not oniit froin Synodicon the clause that declared aiiathema 'to
everytliing that had been written or said against holy I'atriarchs Nicepho-
ros and 'l'arasiosl'g", therefore it was certainly awkward for a hagiographer
o f titudite orientation to write tl-iat the schisin brolte out because Naucra-
tios et al. refused to condemn Tlieodore's painphlets against these
patriarchs. So he, just like Sabas, rcplaced tlie true matter of the dispute
with another, which also reflectetl real events and therefore would riot
seem questionable to the contemporaries. Moreover, the mentiori of
unworthy liierarchs ordained by Methodios rnight liave evoked an allusion
to concrete persons active at tlie time when the Iife was written or editeti
- e.g. to 13iskiop Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, tlie rnain enemy of Tgnatios
cluring the latter's first patriarchate.
'J'hiis the only reliable source h r the reconstruction oí' the events are the
texts of Methodios hirnself, and primarily Iiis two lettcrs to (resp. about) tlie
Stuclites. Uefore proceeding to their exarnination, however, a chronological
outline has to inade. As is well known, t11e solicl terminus post quem is
24.01.844, tlie &ay of the translation of relics of St.Theodore of Studiou and
their deposition in this monastery, in which tlie patriarch took an active
part. No less solid terminus unte quem for the outbrealt of tlie conflict is
Novemher 846, when Metliodios visited Ioanriikios for the last time just
before the latter's cleath and the passions were already running high. Gru-
1 x 1 proposes the date of 845-846, but we cannot exclude the second half
of 844 as well.
From Methodios' first letter to the Studites the developnient can be trac-
ed as follows: at first the patriarch publishes a certain document wl-iere he
deiends his way of governing the church and orders Tlieodore Studite's
works written against Nicephoros and Tarasios to be burnt and anathem-
atizedgj. Uarrouzes proposes a correction of text which is to my mind super-
fluous: in the sentence icaOWs d-rroXoyoÚpevoi. i v ~Gitsnepl ~ 7 ~ 1K K X~ ~ O L U S
~ L O ~ . K ~ ] CyT~F (yTpL a + ~ ~heu ciianges
~ ~ v T T E P ~to -rríptt, although the text
can be understood as it s ~ a n d sif SLOLKI~CTELS is interpreted metonymically.
Neitlier Grumel nor Laurent felt any need to correct tliis passageg" Tliis
order was valid for tlie Studites as well, since the first mention of the writ-
ings to be anathematized in the surviving letter to Naucratios and Athana-
sios begins with ijv TPÓTOV ~ t p q ~ 0 9(Plusyuamperfectum!).
5 It is also pos-

" GGOLIARD, Symdicon, p.53,114-116.

93 D A J ~ U Up.37,113.
~~S,
94 CRIIMBI.,i?iges~es,NO 427: "le gouvernernent de I1eglise";V. T,ALIKENT "po~ir
justifier son
adrninistraíion" (Mcjthode de Comtantinople. J)ictionnaire de la théologie catholique X ,
col. 1602).
y5 DARROII%~?S,
p.37,109.
64 DMITRY E APINOGENOV

sible that Methodios wrote to them separately, but this letter has not been
preserved. So evesythig looks vesy consistent - in the first letter Methodios
simply dernands the condemnation of Theodore's pamphlets, in the second
one (surviving) he threatens the Studites with punishment for disobedience
and imposes preliminasy sanctions and finally in the third one (partly sur-
viving) carries out the repressive measures by declaring the Studites ana-
thematized if they do not comply immediately. Yet in tliis sequence the
rnonlts' role is fairly passive, for they refuse to condemn Theoclore's writings
and notliing more. As a matter of fact, neither Methodios accuses them
of anything besicles that. To prove it, let us take a closer look at the only
phrase in the first of the surviving letters which might be interpreted as
ascribing the initiative to the Studites.
...Wc f i y a ~ G ~ c StÉppqxBc,
, ~ a Wc
i @ELTE h É o x t o 0 c , ~ a Wc
i oú
o u v a y ~ X a < ó p ~ v okt ó v t o t r r c + ú ~ a ~ c ~, X o í j v u í ~ t v c cOVTEC ~ a r if j c ^i)pc-
p í , ~ q ~ o &rrcar~pqp.Évo~,
c Wc fiyarrth-c U p i i c , t v a kfi X u ~ a í v q - r a t 4 TOV
i(v0pWrr~v T T X ~ ~ U~ Cf U j p d p u ~a~a+0o~p.,..9~

Although Methodiosl style is notoriously obscure, from these words we

can gather that they pertain to the isolation of the Studites as a result of the
"house arrest" imposed by the patriarch with this same letter. 1 lxlieve that
the repetition of the clause "Ws +ya~rE-re" indicates that tlie condition of
G~íppqxO~ and &Tríox~aOt is not meant here as a unilateral action on the part
of the rnonlts who have severed the communion with the patriarch, but as
the latter's natural reaction to their behaviour. Consequently, these verlx
have to be interpreted not as Meclia (Darrouz&s translates &níox~oOeas
"vous avez h i t schistne"), but as Passiva. In other words, the contextual
meaning of the sentence sliould be approxiniately as follows: "You wocild
like to llave a special status, to be diffei-ent frorri the others? Beholtl, 1 con-
fine you to your monastery." Hence the final subordinate clause with Iva
which is appropriate only if the action in the main seritence originates froin
the patriarch.
As for the self-proclaiined hegumenate of the Studite leaders, it niust be
observed that Methodios cpestions the rank of Naucratios and Athanasios
not because he regards its iisurpation as one of their punishable misdeeds,
hut in order to release their subordinates from the cluty of obedience pre-
scribed by the monastic discipline. Nevertheless, at the first stage of tlie con-
flict, to wl~ichthis text pertains, there is still no schism in the technical sense
of the term -the Studites are neither deposed nos excomniunicated.

96 hsroii~i.s,tlie first letter., 1.98-101. 1 do 11ot dnre to produce a ti.;inskiiion of this pas-
sage into any latigwge othcr tkin niy own.
 The subsequent course of events can be tentatively reconstructed in the
f d o w i n g way: The monks of two closters closely connected with tlie Stu-
dion, Saltkudion and Kata Saba seern to have approached the patriarch as
mediators on belialf of the Studites. In the second letter, which was prob-
ably meant as encyclical, Methodios says: "This is about tlie Sakkudionites
and Ibtasabatites, whom the aforernentioned canon does not allow to act
as mediators ( ~ E C T ~ [ either
E L V )in ecclesiastical or in secular affairs" (lines
134-1361 Methodios refuses to llave any contacts with tliern whatsoever
(OUT€ ~ ~ W T ~ ~OUT€ E O ELTTOKPLCKWS
S - 1.68-69;139), let alone to meet them
personally (ovXXóyou -- 1.69). Tliis time, however, tlie patriarch encounterecl
a much stronger opposition, since several bishops also sided with tlie stu-
dites. We know only one of them, a deposed metropolitan of Nicomedia by
nicknaine Monornaclios97. Another is describecl as "the eunucli of the
churcli of Cyzicus."98 It is not possible to say wliat rank had John Katasambas
wlio is rnentioned as Methodios' supporter in the Life of David, Symeon and
George ancl as liis adversary (with a characteristic alteration of the narne:
lll(a~ooáppac't) in tlie Lifc of Ioannikios by I'eter99. Proceeding from Me-
thodios' statement that the bishops who opposed liim "ik ivbs ITXELOVES
y ~ v ó p m t (1.195)
" we can assume that tliere were more than two oí' them.
The Life also uses the word i.rrío~orrotin Plura1'00. It should we noted,
though, that the patriarch does not consider these prelates main culprits, as
he describes them as "deceived" ( i ~ a m ~ q O t i c r1.158-159).
t, It is interesting
that the patriarch acted exactly like Nicephoros during the Second Moechian
scliism -he refused to make any compromise and turned for support to the
secular authoritiesl01. The Life says that "the imperial hand assisted tlie ver-
dictH102which implied depositionl03 and anatkiematizationl04 of the re-
calcitrant bishops and liegumeni. Further on 1 will try to clraw a comparison
between these two conflicts within the Uyzantine churcli, but first it is

97 Pelm Vita Ioannicii, p.43213.

98 Ibid. It is not iinprohable that he is identical willi John of Cyzicus, tlie addressee of
Llie letter of Graptoi i~rothers:Vitu Th~odorisGrupti, PG 116, 6690.
99 Acla Davidis ..., p.254,lX; Petri Vita Ioannicii, p. 431A,D; p.432U. May h e this Jolin
was thc abbot of ICata Saha? Anyway, in Peter's text Jolin Kakosamhas and Monomaclios of
Nicoinedia are two clifferenl persons.
lnO Vita Metlmdii, 12571).
101 See A ~ ~ o c r i ~ K ow
v ,v a ~ a v ~ ~ v o ú ~ (11,
r r op.58-59.
h~
' O V i t u Methodii, 1257D, cf. the refercnces to tlie secular power in the sccond letter,
1.129-131.
'03 Shid., 1.157-163. Cf. fragrnents 4 and 6 and tlie Tcstament, 1.20-27 (Iln~tito~izAs,
p.55-56).
lo* Fragment 4 (Darrouzes).
 necessary to outline tlie conclusions concerning the causes and motives of
Methodios' clasli with the Studites.
The condemnation of Theodore's pamphlets in rny opinion was not a
pretext, but the act-ual cose of the whole affair. Nicephoros and Methodios,
once they came to power, used the first opportunity to elirninate the dani-
age that the Patriarehate in tlie person of their predecessors suffered from
the opposition inside the Church. And in both cases it was the patriarchs,
noi their adversaries, who attacked first. In the second letter of Metliociios
we read that the Studites maintairied that the patriarch was searching for the
pamphlets anci got hold of them with the l-ielp of his agent. Methodios
replies t l ~ the
t agent in question was a "double" one from the very begin-
ning and that the Studites deliberately made him deliver the writings to the
patriarch in order to "intimidate"the latter (1.217-220). Whatever version is
correct, it is quite obvious that the texts which criticized Nicephoros and
Tarasios were not di.~seminatedor uduertised by the monks, wl-iich means
that the first step towards the open clash was not rnade by the partisans of
Naucratios and Athanasios.
The comparison of the balance of power and the developrnent of events
in 808-811 on the one hand and in 844-847on the other reveals sorne very
sigriificant difkrences. L3y al1 objective criteria Methodios' situation was
niuch more difficult tl-ian Nicephoros', The latter was firmly supported by
such a strong and capable ruler as the Emperor Nicephoros 1. On the con-
trasy, Methodios' relations with the court seem to llave been Fa more corn-
plicated. There is a mention of secular officials siding with Iiis opponents iri
Methodios' second letter (cf. 1.205-206:iITl~hlvÓpaJova ú ~ o i sdpxov~a),but
the xnost eloquent is tlie story witli the accusation of adultery brought
against the patriarcli. Von Dobschüiz was absoliitely right, 1 think, when he
linked it to the conflict with tlie Studiteslos. The personalities of the a<:-
cusers (Metropllanes, 1-iituremetropolitan of Smyrna, and his rnothcr) as well
as of the investigators (protomagister Manuel) confirm this point of view.
Metrophanes was to becotne one of tlie fiercest enemies of Photios, tl-ie con-
tinuator of 'I'arasios-Nicephoros-Methodios line in t11e Byzantine church,
while Manuel was known for his close connections with Studiou. Furtl-iw-
more, Patriarch Nicepl-ioros was opposed by only one bishop, Joseph of
Thessalonica, whereas Mcthodios l-iad to deal with several higli hierarchs.
And despite a11 that Methodios acted rnucli more drastically and went con-
siderably farther in bis dernancls. Whilst Niceplioros only wanted the Studi-
tes to keep silence on the restoration of Josepli and not to break commu-
 KiLNCTANTI NOYTrOAI C ElTl CKOTION EXEI (11) 67

nion with the patriarch, Methodios demanded that Theodore's behaviour in

the Moechian affair be unequivocally condemned (it is especially remark-
able since he unearthed that old strife himself). The gravest punishtnent
decreed by the Council of 809 was the deposition of John of Thessalonica
to the rank of a simple priestlOG, whereas Methodios not only deposed, but
also anathematized his opponents.
How can this difference be explained? The key, to my mind, is provided
by the following utterance fsom the Life of Methodios: "However, the
patriarch's will and verdict had the upper hand, because his rank allowed
that"107. In fact, it is not the variance of personal temperament os political
ski11 that caused the difference between Tarasios' Nicephoros' and Metho-
dios' actions in analogous situations, but the real rise of the institutional
power and influence of the I~atriarcl-iateof Constaritinople fmn 784 to 843.
The theoretical foundation of this rise is emphatically expressed in Metho-
dios' ecclesiology.
The predominant idea of Methodios' witings against the Studites is that
the patriarch is not just the first among the bishops, but possesses another,
higher grade of priesthood, namely that of the Apostles. Here are sotne yuo-
tations:
And the worlcs of the divine Dionysius and canonical prescription will
manifest with al1 eviclence tliat the bishops, that is tlie liierarchs, define for
tlie priests what hefits their status, and the patriarchs for the bishops. Por
what is appropriak according to the status is defined by higher ranks for
lower ones, up to the Apostles - and their successors, that is the patriarchs,
are also iipostles... (Letter 2 , 9 0 6 , Darrouz6s)
For bishop is a common (noXXoo~óv)nanie and thing, whereas that of
the Apostles and their successors is rare 2nd very infrequent, inasterf~~l and
sovereign. (Ibid., 167sq.)

The patriarchs are called succesors of the Apostles in one more place
(ibid., 1.113-114) and three more times are directly equalled to thetn (ibid.,
1.145,161,181).This is, as far as 1 know, the first time when the doctrine of
apostolicity is formulated in such a radical manner on the Byzantine s o i l l ~ ~ .
To realize the progress the patriarchal ideology made over sixty years it is

106 HENRY 11. "The Moechian Controversy and the Constantinopolitan Synod of Janiiary
A.D. 809." J7%S 20 (1969), p.495-522, p.518.
107 'YTT~PVLKQ ~ ~ V T O L fi P oUu X ~ TC ~cai ~ p i a c3 s átiac TOÜTO
~ ETOU T F U T ~ L ~ ~ X O
imí-pt.rroÚuqs (1257D).
108 Cf. P.O'CONNEL, T h e Ecclesiology of St.Niccpliorus 1." Orientalia Cbrislic~naAnalecla
194, Rome 1972, p.29-37 and 151-159. F. DVORNIK ( m e Idea qfApostolicity in Byzanlium and
the Legend ofApostle And~ew.Cambridge (Mass.) 1958) has no rnention of it.
68 IIMITRY E.AFINOGENOV

enough to recall Tarasios' appeal which stands in the title of this paper.
Tarasios said: "Constantinople has a bishop"lo9 - Methodios is not afraid to
say something like "1 am your Apostle." Theodor Studite's reaction to the
attempt to confirm the episcopal authority by the Coiincil of 809 was: "...if
this be allowed, in vane is the Gospel, useless the canons, and let every-
one during the time of his archpriesthood be a new Evangelist, another
Apostle."llo Now, however, a pro-Studite hagiographer writes: " T ~ Sdtíccs
TOUTO i m ~ p ~ v o ú o qMeanwhile
~." Methodios goes even farther and identi-
fies bis predecessors with the Church herself: "as they were the Church, they
who had gathereci herfllll. The source of these ideas is easy to guess - the
years Methodios spent in Rome probably played their role.
One more itnportant rnotif to be observed in the Methodios' writings is
the description of continirity between the Orthodox patriarchs in tertns of
parenthood. This is perhaps why his biographer addresses him with a follow-
ing exclamation: "Oh thou who hast honoiired as fatl-iers Orthodox
patriarchs and confessors, both living and deceased!."ll2 The patriarch hirn-
self says that he had transcribed tlie pamphlets detracting Nicephoros and
Tarasios "not because 1 allowed my parents to be dishonoured, as parri-
cides (.rrmpaXoia~)do" (Letter 2,200-201). Pllotios later used the satne word
tlparricide"to cl-iaracterize Ignatios' attitude towards his predecessorllj.
An important feature of Methodios' ecclesiastical policy mias the com12ina-
tion of practica1 measures 2nd ideologically motivated symbolical actions.
As has been already cletnonstrated, tliese actions were primarily airned at
raising the status of tlie Constantinopolitan see by glorifying its triumphs
over the heretics (the Feast of Orthodoxy), tlze interna1 opposition (con-
demnation of 'i'heodore's pamphlets) and even over tlie imperial power.
May hc the most conspicuous presentation of the latter kind, of wliich we
fortunately possess a detailed account, was the translation of relics of St.
Patriarch Nicephorosll*.

'Or, See APINOGENOV, Kwva~av~tvoÚnoAts (11, p.48.

liO7heodoloriEpiirtulue,Ep.24,02: i n t í , t i TOUTO OoOtíi], K E V ~ VTO túayyíktov, E ~ K $ oi
itavóvtc, ~ a ti ~ a o ~ oKs~ T & TOV ~ a t p b v~ i i coiittíac cip~~cpwuúvqs..,?al-w v6os t ú a y y t -
A L U T ~ ~ S , &AOS ánóol-»Los... At the end of lhis life 'l'hcodore ciianged liis opinion and ac-
knowledged the patriarcl-is as s~icccssossof ilie Apostles: Jip.4711,61-64. (kitetl 823 ).
lUl'r.4,5 (Dasrouzes): i ~ t i v o tydp q u a v fi 'EicitAqoía, oi itai -raÚl-qv u u v á ~ a v ~ t 'l'lie
c.
Lext in YG 100,J 294A has 01-qpítaimtc insteacl of u v v á ~ a v ~ t s .
lI2 Vita Melhodii, l261B.
113 ibk~nsi,vol.XV1, co1.2-3.
""'~"neophanis Presbyteri Navatio de tmnslatione Nicephori. Mvqktia CIytoXoyt~á.
'EKS. bnb O.'] wávvq, B t v d a 1884, o.115-128.
 I<RNCTANTIN O Y ~ O AzI ETIILKOIION EXEI (11) 69

One observation has ío be made before we move on to the analysis of

this clocunient. The translation of St. Theodore Studite and St. Joseph of
Thessalonica took place in January, 844, while that of Nicephoros - in March
847. 'That means that precisely the time span between the two events saw
the eruption of the Stuclite schism, which by 847 was certainly in full swing.
This context must be by al1 means kept in mind, so it is necessary to sum-
marize the contents of the account of the translation of Theodorell5:
1. Na~icratiosof Studiou and Athanasios of Sakk~iclionapproach the
patriarch and tlie Empress and get the perrnission to transport Tlieo-
dore's relics from tlie island of Principi to Constantinople (p.55-56).
2. A large crowd of monks from clifferent monasteries headed by both
hegumeni arrives to the Saint's tomb and pray hirn to return to his
city and monasteiy (p.56-57).
3. Theodore's relics arrive to Constantinople received by a cheerful
multitucle of monks, clerics and laymen (p.57).
4. The relics are carried to the tnonastesy of Studiou. There they are
visited by sonie dignitaries and the I->atriarchMetliodios with his
clergy. The empress does not come personally but sends gifts (p.58).
5. Theodore and Joseph are solemnly interred by the patriarch himself.
Now let us look at the account of 'Theophanes I->resbyter:
1. The patriarch approaches Theodora saying that "it does not befit the
government and the state" (o6 rrpoofj~ov TQ K P ~ T E L ~ a ~i f nj o k
- d a ) to leave the glorioiis Patriarch Nicephoros, who was banished
for the true faith, "undes tlie same condernnation of exile" (73 a6rQ
KaTa6íKl;l T ~ S$copias) - p. 124-125.
2. Methodios arrives to the monastesy of St.Theodore with a throng of
priests, monks and laymen. There he addresses St.Nicephoros witli a
prayer in which he compares him to St,JohnChsysostom as "$$'Ópoíl
[$u+.. n a p p q o ~ a o á ~ ~ vand
o s " says:
Erstwhile the emperor alienüted from God opposed thee in thy life-
time 2nd improvidently expelled thee froin tlie Church. He received the
retribution that his outrage deserved, when he was in his turn expelled by
his miserable death from power ancl life ... Today tlie emperors attached to
God by their pious disposition give thee back the Church even after thy
death, and as if adopted by thee through the Gospel togetl~erwith ine pre-

115 C. VAN r x VORST, "La translation de S. ThCodoi-e Studitc et de S. Josepli de 'i'hessalo-

nique." AR 32 (19131, p.50-61.
70 DMITRY E. AFINOGENOV

sent it to thee ... Let thy city have ... thy blessed body, ...boasting of it more
then of the imperial rnajestyll6.

3. Nicephoros' relics are carried by the priests to the specially prepared

dro~non(Le. military ship of the imperial Navy). In the harbour of
Constantinople they are receivect by emperor Michael and the highest
officials who carry tliem on their shoulders to St. Sophia "from which
he was chased away, deprived of the archpriesthood" (p.126).
4. On March 13, the day of Nicephoros' exile in 815,the relics are trans-
ferred from St.Sophia to tlie church of St.Apostles to be interred. The
procession is so sumpiuous that none of tlie pi-evious soleninities of
this kind dedicated to eniperors or priests (M TC paotX~tjoi~ a ic- i
pctjot) can rival it.

There is hardly any need to explain that the whole ceremony was design-
ed to deinonstrate the triumph of the Church as personified by the de-
ceased patriarch, over tlie State. Hut the comparison of the two accounts re-
veals another aim of Methodios - al1 the pomp and splendour was probably
supposed to dwarf the importance of Studiou and its glorious hegumenos.
The patriarch obviously endeavoured to present the translation of bis pre-
decesor as a matter of state importance in contrast to the essentially private
nature of Theodore's translation.
It is of course very ternpting to include in this outline of Methodios' pro-
pagandistic activities the series oí" ninth century illurninated Psalters witli
~narginalillustrations glorifying Nicephoros as the victor over Iconoclasm.
I-Iowever, as their date is not certainl'7 and the subject deseives a much
more detailed exaniination then coulcl fit in the framework of tliis paper, 1
am leaving it out for now 2nd pass to tlie general conclusions.
The consistent policy and ingenioiis tacticts of the Orthodox resistente
to the Second Iconoclasm, organized and clirected mainly by the I->atriarch
Nicephoros and later by the f ~ ~ t u Patriarch
re Methodios, eventually brouglit
about a complete victory over the heresy, whidi was presented by the
patriarchal "party" as a triumph of Churcli over State. Tlie prestige and
influence of the see of Constantinople had grown enormously hoth at the

"6 Iipwqv $ X X o ~ p t w ~ í v o7c1% OtoLi p a a ~ X ~ i iUc v ~ ~ i t a ~ ÉGOL

o ~ jq6 v - r ~ itai ~ q íc~ i t X q
U ~ U S UT~ITF~LUI~~ITTWC
~KPÉF~~~KFV 8s
K ,C ~¿%K~v ¿ltíaV 79s ITapoL~íac ~ K T ~ T L K W UVTFK@X~-
,
0 d c S u a ~ ~ j vTq~ X C LT ~ CUpxqc ~ a ~i o L ij q v . C-í)ptpov p a o ~ k t i sG K ~ L W L ~ VOf-@ OL 8 ~ ' d a t -
PE~CIS T ~ Ó T T W V ~ a T i~ A V E W T ~001 T+ i ~ ~ X q a i aSLO~CLOLV,
v di itai olovci 61d r o u tUayycXíou
vio~ro~qAív-rts uo~~ , a ú ~ qoiiv v í k o i -rapicr~Wa~ +
... ' E X ~ T W n ó h c aov... T?I nav6hp~ovaicq-
vóc aou... n u o v 1-4s p a a l h ~ í j yp y a k t ~ ó ~ q ~i odc T O Ú T ~ ~ p É ~ v o ~ (p.125 í v q -126, cap.11).
'l7 Sce SEVEENKO,
The Anli-Iconoclust Poem , 11.57-58.
i expense of the iniperial power and of the oppositional groups within the
Church. At the same time Methodios' cffort to subdue the St~iditeopposi-
tion for good failed. After his death in 847 the goverriment, reacting to the
rise of the patriarchal power, sided witli the Studites and appointed tlieir
ally Ignatios as Methodios' successor. IIowever, although Ignatios atteinpl-
ed to undo some of his preclecessor's achievements, the tnajor part of them
reinainecl with the Byzantine church to the very end of the empire ancl pos-
sibly cven beyond it.

Dmitry E. A F I N ~ G E N ~ V
Kussian Academy qf Sciences
Inslitule of Wodd tIz.slo~;y
11 73-34 Leninsky P~ospekt32A
Moscow, Kussia